Our natural tendency is to divide everything into two distinct groups, such as safe and dangerous, or friend and enemy, or true and false, or fact and fiction, or right and wrong, or correct and incorrect. We never developed a word for something other than true or false or right or wrong because we prefer two groups. However, it would make more sense to have at least three groups, such as friend, enemy or neutral. In regards to information, we should have at least one more category for the information we are unsure about.

We should have a third category for information, such as mystery, or unknown, or speculation.

Our mind assumes that we are so smart that our classifications are "correct", but our classifications are nothing more than opinions. Something that we believe to be a "fact" is not necessarily correct, or even partly accurate. History shows that many facts have turned out to be fiction. For example, during the Middle Ages many people thought that it was a fact that iron could be turned into gold through a chemical reaction.

Our decision about whether a certain bit of information is factual, fictional, or a mystery depends upon our genetic characteristics, our education, and our social environment (such as peer pressure). Most of us have similar educations and environments, but there are significant differences in our genetic characteristics, and this results in some noticeable differences between us in regards to what we regard as factual and fiction. A simple example are the disagreements between the people who are religious, and those who are not.

A religious person might categorize information as shown in the illustration to the right.

Although the non-religious people boast that they have a more accurate view of the world than the religious people, it is very likely that many of their facts will be considered fiction by future generations. For example, is "dark matter" really a fact? Did the dinosaurs really go extinct because of an asteroid hitting the earth? Is there really such a thing as wormholes or parallel universes?

How many of the facts that some scientists believe today will be considered fiction in the future?

Sometimes it is useful to categorize items into distinct categories, but we need to occasionally remind ourselves that everything is much more complex than our mind wants it to be. For example, it would be more accurate to put all bits of information somewhere along an accuracy spectrum, as in the illustration below.

		Although we cannot truly measure the certainty of a fact, this spectrum can help us realize that we have a lot to learn about the universe.

There are no dividing lines between anything. One thing blends into another. There is not even a distinction between living creatures and non-living objects. For example, is a virus truly a "living creature"? If you consider a virus to be a "living creature", consider the possibility that the very first viruses were even more simplistic than those of today. Therefore, it would have been even more difficult to classify those very first viruses as living creatures.

If life began as a result of chemical reactions, and if we had been around to observe the process, it would be difficult for us to pick the day at which life started. We would notice that the chemicals are becoming larger and more complex, but the process would likely have been so gradual that we would have trouble choosing the millennium that life got started.

To complicate the issue of what is factual and what is fictional, our opinions change depending upon our environment. For two examples:

The people who believe in heaven have different levels of confidence in how factual the concept of heaven is. Therefore, they would place the concept of heaven at different positions on the accuracy spectrum. However, the point I want to bring to your attention is that most people shift the location of heaven on the spectrum according to their environmental situation.

Specifically, when people are young and healthy, they are more likely to consider heaven to be a somewhat factual concept, but most people develop serious doubts about heaven once they realize that they are dying. Instead of becoming joyous at the thought of leaving the crime, diseases, corruption, overcrowding, and other problems here on the earth, and getting to experience the nirvana of heaven, they become frightened of death, and they react by struggling to survive, or they waste their remaining moments of life crying, pouting, regretting their life's decisions, or becoming sad.

To rephrase that, people believe in heaven when it has no relevance to them, but once they realize that they are dying, they shift the concept of heaven towards the fictional end of the spectrum.

Likewise, when the parents who put heaven in the factual section of the spectrum realize that their child is dying, they become frightened, and they go to extremes to keep him alive. They do not tell their child that he should look forward to death because he will enter a wonderful heaven.

If there truly was a heaven, and if some of our dead relatives or friends were live streaming videos from heaven to show us what heaven is like, and to answer our questions, then all of us would consider heaven to be 100% factual, and we would look forward to death.

Actually, we would investigate the issue of whether suicide would allow us to get into heaven immediately. If suicide was not an option, then we would stop worrying about death. We would do whatever risky activities that frighten us, such as flying with a wingsuit or bungee jumping.

Or, imagine if some of the dead criminals were occasionally live streaming about their suffering and torture in hell. That would cause us to realize that hell is 100% factual, and it would probably discourage a lot of people from committing crimes. That would do more to stop crime than any type of police action.

Some people consider the concept of a fusion reactor to be mostly factual, and others consider it to be mostly fictional, but, just like heaven, our view about fusion reactors depends upon our situation. For example, if a person is asked to invest a significant amount of his money in a project to develop a fusion reactor, he is likely to shift his view of fusion reactors towards the fictional category.

Facts and fiction are so arbitrary that we change our view of them depending upon our situation.

The brain of an animal evolved only to survive the battle for life, to reproduce, and to raise babies. The human mind is the same. We have so little concern about reality that our decisions about what is a fact and what is fiction will change according to what we want the facts to be. Our mind will give us the conclusions that we are emotionally attracted to, and dismiss whatever we dislike. Our mind does not care about evidence, contradictions, or hypocrisy.

In order for us to produce intelligent thoughts, we must exert enough self-control to force ourselves to look for supporting evidence, have more than one person verify what we assume to be true, and be critical of our ideas. There was no significant scientific progress in human life until people learned these lessons during the Middle Ages.

Our mind assumes that something we regard as a "fact" is definitely true, and something we regard as "fiction" is definitely false, but the human mind doesn't know what is true or false. The human mind is in a dark skull, and it has to guess about what is going on by interpreting the electrical and chemical signals coming from our senses. Everything that we regard as true or false is our interpretation of our sensory data. We are guessing at what is true and false.

Each of us sees something slightly different about the universe. In order to get a good understanding of an issue, we must be able to look at it from different points of view, and that requires that we listen to other people's opinions.

A lot of people are aware of this concept, and they sometimes mention the story of the blind men and the elephant, but very few people practice what they preach.

Our natural tendency is to react to alternative opinions with insults, anger, or by ignoring them. As a result, very few people have "discussions". Most people either give lectures or get into arguments.

Since facts and fiction are whatever we want them to be, we can improve our decisions of what is factual by listening to different opinions and exploring new ideas. It is detrimental for a society to suppress discussions, criticism, and alternative opinions.

If people would practice what they preach, then everybody who mentions the story of the blind men and the elephant would oppose censorship, and they would also oppose the ridicule of people with different opinions.

Perhaps it would help people understand this concept if we edited the story of the blind men to fit our modern era. For example:

The school system that we have today was originally intended only to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. The Kastron schools are to be modernized so that they prepare children for our considerably more advanced society. For example, the Kastron schools can tell the students that the math facts are 100% correct, but history should be regarded as a branch of zoology. History is not a collection of facts. Rather, it is a collection of analyses of the lives of a particular species of monkey, and those analyses are full of speculations and guesses.

The schools should teach the students that the most intelligent people are those who can find improvements to historical analyses, or who can learn something from history, rather than those who can only memorize and repeat the historical information.

Schools should give children practice in analyzing issues that have no right or wrong. For example, the students could be given an assignment to write about their speculations about the genetic differences between men and women, and then the students would discuss their ideas to the class. The purpose of that type of assignment would be to give the students practice in researching historical information, thinking about complex issues, and remaining calm as they listen to different opinions and criticism.

A school course cannot make a student learn something, but giving students those type of exercises will help some of them become adults who are better able to remain calm and relaxed in a discussion, thereby reducing the pouting, yelling, insults, and sarcastic noises.

If the schools around the world were giving those type of exercises to students right now, then there would be millions of students getting involved with discussions that are currently being suppressed, such as the genetic differences between men and women, the accusations of cheating in the 2020 elections, the censorship by Facebook, whether Michelle Obama is a man or a woman, how Building 7 crumbled into pieces, whether Jews are telling the truth about the Holocaust, and whether the Apollo astronauts really landed on the moon.

Unfortunately, our schools are under the control of criminals, people who are frightened of the unknown, and people who don't understand that history is an analysis rather than a collection of facts. As a result, students are taught that historical information is factual, and they are under pressure to memorize it rather than wonder about its accuracy. Students are not even permitted to discuss certain issues, and they are not given practice in exploring new ideas.

Although the artists who create images that are similar to the one to the right are likely to be misfits of the modern world who do not like schools, jobs, or laws, that image does have a valid message; specifically, that rather than stimulate a child's curiosity and inspire him to explore the unknown, the schools pressure him to memorize information, suppress his curiosity, and have faith that the information is 100% correct.

In order to improve this situation, the Kastron schools are prohibited from censoring information, and they are not allowed to pander to the students or parents who complain that certain issues are "sensitive" or "controversial". No issue is off-limits to the students or teachers.

Furthermore, the students who find inaccuracies in the information should be regarded as valuable citizens because they are the people who can find improvements to our lives.

When a scientist is studying an animal, he does not have to be concerned about the animal lying to him, but every human lies occasionally, so we must verify all of the information that we get from other people, even if the person is "highly respected". It is foolish to assume that we can trust the information from a human mind.

However, in order to make a wise decision about the accuracy of the information, we need access to as much information as possible. As we acquire more information about an issue, we can do a better job of understanding the issue.

The story of the blind men and the elephant should make this clear. If the blind men could control their arrogance and consider that each of them have some valid information, then instead of arguing over right or wrong, they would have put all of their information together, and that would have helped them develop a more accurate understanding of the elephant.

The reason censorship is useful for criminals is because it restricts the information that we have access to, which in turn interferes with our ability to understand the issue and determine the accuracy of information. This in turn makes it easier for us to be deceived by lies.

The following sections discuss some of the reasons we lie, and we should keep these reasons in mind when we analyze an issue.

As soon as we are able to speak, we lie about making mistakes and doing things we should not have done. Although the lies of children and the "ordinary people" are usually insignificant from the point of view of a historian and a police detective, the past few decades should make it obvious that there are millions of criminals around the world who create a very serious problem for historians, teachers, crime investigators, and other people because they routinely and deliberately create a lot of false and deceptive "facts" in order to cover up their crimes and manipulate us.

Thousands of criminal journalists, scientists, government officials, business leaders, church officials, professors, and charity officials are producing a lot of deceptive information and lies about the 9/11 attack, the world wars, the Holocaust, and possibly thousands of other issues. They are also deliberately ignoring and suppressing certain information and people.

There are so many criminals, and they are producing so much propaganda and deception, that it is foolish for us to trust any information. We need to verify everything.

Crime networks seem to be much larger and more numerous today, so there are probably a lot more people producing false information today than there were centuries ago, but we should assume that there have been criminals producing false information for thousands of years. Therefore, we should verify all of the information that comes from the people of previous centuries, also.

Another reason that we cannot trust what a person says is that all of us lie a bit in order to improve our image. We are in competition for status and a spouse, and this results in all of us hiding the undesirable aspects of our life, and sometimes lying about ourselves. In some cases we lie to impress other people, but we also lie to make ourselves feel better about ourselves.

Most of the lies of the "ordinary" people are trivial from the point of view of a historian, but the lies of government officials, teachers, journalists, and other influential people can have a significant effect on our understanding of history. For example, there is evidence that some of the ancient Egyptian pharaohs and modern communist leaders would delete and edit history in order to make their competitors look bad, and/or make themselves look better. Therefore, even though some historical data comes from "official" government sources and "reputable people", we cannot assume that it is accurate or honest. Many of those people lied simply to make themselves look good, rather than to cover up a crime.

Our natural assumption is that the "respectable" and "important" members of society can be trusted, but there is evidence that we cannot even trust them on something that is as insignificant as their ancestry. For just two examples:
Those two women show us that a historian who is trying to understand somebody's ancestry must consider the possibility that the person lied about his ancestry, and he may have lied for a reason that does not "make sense" to a normal person.

Some people lie about whether they are male or female, and some homosexuals lie about their sexual desires. Most of those people do not lie in order to cover up a crime. Rather, they lie in order to avoid ridicule or discrimination. However, their lies can interfere with our understanding of history and human behavior.

There are also people who lie about crimes, or remain silent about some information, because they worry about retaliation by criminals. Those people are deceptive, but not because they want to cover up a crime, or deceive historians. Rather, they don't have any confidence that the police will protect them from the criminals.

All of us routinely lie to one another in order to avoid conflicts, such as when we lie about liking somebody's new hairstyle. Most of those lies are insignificant to a historian or crime investigator, but this type of lying has a detrimental effect on our culture. To understand this, imagine an extreme example. Imagine a city in which everybody is so afraid to hurt other people's feelings that all of them are routinely lying about enjoying the clothing styles, recreational activities, music concerts, church affairs, holiday celebrations, and restaurants. It is conceivable that they end up with a culture that none of them like, but all of them are so afraid to admit the truth that they continue to do what they do not want to do because they assume other people enjoy it.

That ridiculous situation is likely to be happening right now in many parts of the world, but not to such an extreme. For example, consider the statue in Australia of the "poop on sticks." How many of the people in that city actually want that statue? And how many want it removed but are afraid to say so because they worry about hurting other people's feelings?

Likewise, there are probably millions of people in the US and Europe who want the refugees and migrants to be sent back to their nation, but they don't say so because they are afraid to be honest.

Our prehistoric ancestors did not have to deal with this issue because they lived in tiny tribes of closely related people who followed the same culture. Today, however, we live in large cities with thousands of people with slightly different desires, intellectual abilities, and emotional characteristics.

We live among people who have differences of opinion, and who have slightly different preferences for food, music, immigration, social activities, clothing styles, art, recreational activities, and jokes. This requires that we be able to deal with the differences between us in a peaceful manner.

This is a complex issue because it's impossible to let everybody do what they want. A democracy assumes that the people will be able to resolve all issues without leadership, but this Constitution wants the government officials to resolve the differences between us. The Kastron government needs to set rules of behavior, but not to appease any group of people. Rather, according to what would be best for the entire city.

Another reason that we cannot trust what a person says is that some people truly try to provide us with accurate, honest, and verified information, but they inadvertently provide us with false or deceptive information because they picked up the false information from somebody they trusted.

An example are the people who have done research into the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, or the Apollo moon landing, but who naively trusted the dishonest journalists, Holocaust survivors, and FBI officials. An honest person who believes the deceptive information from a dishonest FBI agent or Harvard professor is going to give us deceptive information.

This issue is more significant than it may appear. The reason is because the criminals who are aware of this concept will seek out honest but gullible people to promote lies. The way this trick works is that the criminal will trick a person who has a good reputation into believing some false information. This results in a "reputable source of information" who inadvertently promotes lies. We are much more likely to believe a lie when it comes from someone we trust, compared to when it comes from a criminal who has a bad reputation.

The criminals who use this trick are causing a lot of trouble for us by increasing the number of "reputable sources of information" who are inadvertently spreading false information.

The criminals who are promoting deceptive information about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, and other events probably laugh at those of us who believe their lies, and they probably think of themselves as special people who know the truth, but it is possible that everybody has been deceived about something.

There are so many people lying about so many historical events that all of the criminals may have been deceived. There may not be anybody who has been able to avoid all of the deception. A person who is involved with crime networks should not assume that he is one of the special people who has access to the truth.

In order for an organization to function properly, all of the members must follow the same instructions. However, we must make a distinction between when a government is enforcing laws that are intended to organize a bunch of individuals into a team, and when the government is suppressing their critics, censoring alternative opinions, or stifling investigations.

The purpose of a government is to organize people into a team. However, supervising a group of people is not the same as controlling their thoughts. A government should not be allowed to control the thoughts of the people, or stifle their criticism, questions, or curiosity. Everybody should be free to think about any issue, investigate any issue, and discuss any issue. There should be no censorship.

The same concept applies to the organizations within a society. Specifically, the leaders of businesses, schools, sports groups, and other organizations are allowed to organize people into a team, which gives them the authority to require all of their members to follow certain rules of behavior and work schedules, but they are not allowed to control the thoughts of the people, or stifle their curiosity.

We can prove many of our math facts to be 100% true. Therefore, we can allow the government to demand that everybody accept those math facts. However, all of our other knowledge should be regarded as an analysis, and therefore, nobody should be allowed to enforce any of it as "facts", or censor any criticism of it, or censor alternative opinions.

Even the information that we assume is true, such as water boils at 100°C, is not truly accurate. Water boils at different temperatures depending upon the air pressure, and the items dissolved in the water. Everything is more complicated than it seems to a human mind.

People should be encouraged to analyze any fact that they are curious about in order to improve its accuracy. The rest of this section will give two examples of why our leaders should be prohibited from enforcing facts.

We do not know much about health issues, such as nutrition, sleep, water, exercise, diseases, pain, and reactions to medical drugs, caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and other chemicals. Five reasons that it is so difficult to understand our health are:
1) We are extremely complex

2) We are genetically unique

3) Free enterprise systems

4) Secrecy and deception

5) Genetic degradation

Since we know very little about health issues, it would be foolish to allow a government or other organization to claim that certain health concepts are 100% factual. There are numerous examples in human history of when people suffered as a result of other people insisting that some particular piece of medical information is 100% factual. For example, many centuries ago it was a fact that bloodletting would solve lots of medical problems, and that trepanning would solve certain mental disorders. In the 1950's it was a fact that thalidomide was safe for use by pregnant women. Today bloodletting is used only for certain types of health problems, and trepanning has been discontinued.

For a more recent example, when I was a child, there were lots of advertisements for Geritol on television and in paper publications, such as these, and to the right. Those ads may have caused some people to imagine that they were anemic, resulting in their purchase of those iron supplements.

However, living creatures need all chemicals to be within certain ranges. Too much of something, even oxygen, will kill us. People should not take iron supplements unless they need more iron.

In July 2020, some scientists published the results of an analysis of more than a million people, and it suggested that the people with high levels of iron were dying younger than the others.

There are other people claiming that red meat is bad for us, but what exactly is in red meat that is dangerous? Consider the possibility that there is nothing dangerous in red meat, but when we eat large amounts of meat for long periods of time, the people who have a genetic defect in the control of their iron levels end up with excessively high levels, thereby causing health problems.

I don't know much of anything about the nutritional needs of the human body, or the good or bad aspects of red meat. The point I want to make is that scientists do not know much more about human health than I do, or you. And business executives might know less about human health than you and me since many of them seem more interested in keeping up-to-date about home theaters and the optional interiors for private jets.

We know so little about human health that it is foolish to allow businesses to advertise iron supplements, or other medical products. Those ads are causing some people to imagine that they need a particular medical product, which can hurt their health, and annoy the doctors.

Incidentally, if the only problem with red meat is that it causes some people to have excessively high iron levels, then the vegetarian burgers that are high in iron may be just as dangerous for those people.

Where is the evidence that vegans or vegetarians are healthier than people who eat meat? Nobody knows much of anything about human health, but there are millions of people around the world claiming to know the facts about human health, and telling us what we should eat and drink.

Some people are so convinced that they know the facts about cholesterol that they tell us to get our blood checked for it, and they warn us about eating too much of it. In reality, nobody has a good understanding of why there are cholesterol deposits in our veins, or why the deposits are insignificant in some people while causing heart attacks in others.

All of the people who are telling us "health facts" should be told to shut up. They don't have "facts". All they have are "speculations".

Some vegetarians are protesting and harassing the people who eat meat. They are behaving in a manner that is just as disgusting and unacceptable as Jack Dorsey, the ADL, and Mark Zuckerberg. All of those people are refusing to listen to and discuss alternative opinion. They are trying to control us. They are treating us as slaves. Some of them would put us in jail, mental hospitals, or rehabilitation programs, if they could get away with it. I would not be surprised if some vegetarians would like a law against "Vegetarian Denial".

The only way we are going to learn more about human health is to change our attitudes towards facts and fiction, and develop a more advanced government, economic system, and legal system. We must be free to discuss any issue we please, and be critical of any fact that we have doubts about. Nobody should be allowed to censor any information, or prevent research into any issue.

The people who call us "Deniers" of something, or as "anti" something, should be considered guilty of slander, censorship, and intimidation. We should not tolerate any attempt to suppress or censor discussions, criticism, or research.

Also, we would improve our knowledge of human health if we could maintain a database with as much information about everybody's health as possible. This requires a government that provides leadership, rather than a submissive government that panders to the people. It requires a government that gives us the right to know the truth about the people we live with, and prohibits people from being deceptive, dishonest, and secretive.

In every society today, we are allowing so much censorship, secrecy, deception, and abuse that future generations may regard our era as not much better than the Middle Ages. For example, today there are some people claiming that injections of the blood from children will improve our health and allow us to live longer, and some people claiming that growth hormone is a "fountain of youth". Are those facts really 100% true? Or will future generations regard them as idiotic as wearing garlic around our neck to prevent disease?

Imagine if our government was allowed to be as intolerant of alternative opinions as the executives of Google, YouTube, and the ADL. In such a case, if they believed that injections of growth hormone or children's blood is beneficial, then we would be required to take the injections, and anybody who disagreed would be arrested, censored, or fired for being a "Growth Hormone Denier", or a "Young Blood Denier".

If it turned out that the injections caused health problems, then everybody would have suffered as a result of their arrogance. Or, if the injections turned out to be worthless rather than dangerous, then we would have wasted a lot of labor and resources on a worthless medical procedure, and we would have hurt our social environment and caused a lot of suffering as a result of arresting, firing, tormenting, and executing the "Deniers".

We should not tolerate censorship of health issues. The people who react to critics with censorship, murder, blackmail, or intimidation are behaving like an athlete who cannot win a contest except by sabotaging or murdering his competitors. We should consider such behavior to be unacceptable, especially for people in influential positions. A person who is worthy of leadership positions will be able to defend his opinions, and he will be able to answer questions about his opinions.

Our leaders should regularly earn their position by continuously providing us with intelligent analyses, suggestions, and advice. A modern legal system should protect us from journalists, professors, government officials, and other influential people who censor, bribe, blackmail, intimidate, and suppress their critics.

Each of us believes that we are experts on our personal life. We assume that our memories are factual. However, a more realistic attitude is that all of our facts about ourselves are actually just speculations or opinions, and some of them are partially or completely false.

Our mind does not want to doubt itself, so it is difficult for us to believe that some of our memories are inaccurate or false, but the inaccuracy of a human mind becomes obvious when a crime occurs and the police ask the witnesses to describe what happened. The police always end up with a variety of different descriptions, even though everybody witnessed the same event. Two reasons that witnesses disagree with one another are:


If we were living in a city in which there was total video coverage of everybody, each of us would discover that some of our memories are inaccurate; that no human has a memory that is as accurate as a computer.

Now consider how this concept applies to human history. Since each of us interprets an event slightly differently, and we have imperfect memories, none of us can be 100% certain about the details of the historical events that we personally witnessed. So, how can we be certain about the details of the events that occurred to other people, or in previous centuries? And how can we be certain about the events that occurred before there was photographs, or before there was a written language?

On 6 January 2020, there was an event at the US Capitol. There were lots of witnesses, and many of them recorded some of the event with their cell phone cameras. However, there are lots of different explanations of what happened.

For example, some people say that Trump instigated a riot, but other people say that Biden supporters were pretending to be Trump supporters and trying to instigate a riot. Some people say the police tried to prevent the riots, but other people say that some police were assisting the people who wanted to start a riot.

Likewise, there were a lot of people who witnessed the counting of the votes during the 2020 election, but some people say that counting was honest, and others say that the counting was dishonest. There were lots of witnesses to the killing of President Kennedy, but they also disagree on what happened.

The people who witnessed the counting of the ballots, the "Capitol riot", and the assassination of JFK, cannot agree on what happened, even though they witnessed those events, and even though there are lots of photos and video of the events. Since we cannot agree on the events that happened during our lives, it would be foolish for us to assume that people centuries ago were giving us 100% factual descriptions of the events of their lives. Actually, people today probably give more accurate descriptions of events because people today are more educated and have cameras.

It is especially foolish to assume that we can figure out the details for events that occurred millions of years ago. For example, many scientists believe that it is a fact that dinosaurs went extinct as a result of an asteroid crashing into the earth, but can we even claim that it is a "fact" that the dinosaurs went extinct? I don't think so. I suspect that it would be more accurate to say that the large dinosaurs slowly went extinct over a period of millions of years, but some of the smaller dinosaurs evolved to become modern lizards, snakes, iguanas, and other reptiles.

Scientists have already altered their "facts" about dinosaurs and prehistoric humans many times. We should learn from this. Specifically, we should learn to control our arrogance and acknowledge the evidence that our "facts" about the distant past should be described as theories, speculation, or opinions.

The world is currently dominated by people who insist that their opinions are 100% factual, and who are actively involved with censoring information and suppressing their critics. This problem is most noticeable with the Jews who are trying to stop us from investigating the world wars, Anne Frank's diary, the Holocaust, and the 9/11 attack. Those Jews claim to be suppressing investigations in order to protect the truth, but it does not take much intelligence to realize that censorship hides the truth.

We must raise standards for the people in influential positions. Anybody who claims that censorship will protect the truth, or that censorship will protect people from false information, should be considered unacceptable for an influential position. He may be acceptable as a factory worker, but not as a journalist, voter, judge, government official, business executive, or teacher.

There are only a few historical facts that can be proven to be 100% true, such as some dates and times. For example, we can state with certainty that an aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center tower at a certain time and day, but we cannot state with certainty as to what type of airplane it was, or whether there was anybody in it.

Therefore, historians can tell people to accept the date and time that the airplane crashed into the World Trade Center tower, but they should not enforce any other facts about it. Instead, our leaders should tell us to feel free to investigate all aspects of the attack, such as what type of airplane it was, where it came from, and whether it was being flown by a computer, a pilot in the airplane, or a person on the ground.

Likewise, we should feel free to investigate the event at the Capitol on 6 January 2020, and we should be free to investigate all aspects of the Holocaust, such as where the Nazis put the millions of pounds of ashes, teeth, and bones. Another interesting issue we should be able to investigate is whether the decrease in the number of Jews of Europe during the 1940's matches the increase of Jews in Palestine, the USA, and elsewhere.

The history courses in the Kastron schools should teach children that history is an analysis, not a factual description of previous events. Students should be told to feel free to investigate all historical events, and to look critically at all of our assumptions about history.

Even more important, students should be taught that we should not tolerate leaders who try to suppress investigations or critical analyses of historical events. We should regard those people as either incompetent, or as trying to deceive us about history.

The arguments over slavery are another example of why we should not tolerate censorship, and we should encourage investigations and discussions, even if it hurts some people's feelings.

There are some black Americans who are using the slavery issue to get pity for themselves, and other blacks are using the slavery issue to demand "reparations".

Likewise, some Jews want pity because their ancestors were slaves of ancient Egyptians, and a Jewish historian, Yosef ben Matityahu, wrote Antiquities of the Jews almost 2000 years ago, and he claimed that the Jewish slaves built the Egyptian pyramids.

An issue that is even more difficult to find information about is the role Jews had in selling and owning African slaves.

Do the black Americans deserve pity and/or reparations from the US government? Do the Jews deserve pity, and/or reparations from Egypt? Do they deserve credit for building the pyramids? Or were Jews the primary slave traders and slave buyers?

Slavery ended before any of us were born, so all of our knowledge about slavery comes from analyses of documents and events that occurred a century or more ago. This makes it more difficult for us to understand slavery than to understand an issue that occurred during our lifetimes.

Twitter, YouTube, Google, and the journalists don't seem to be censoring investigations about the issue of slavery, but that might be only because not many people are investigating the issue. Most people seem to regard slavery as an unimportant issue that no longer affects us.

It is possible that Yosef ben Matityahu truly believed that Jews built the pyramids, but consider how many Jews today, such as Wolf Blitzer, Benjamin Netanyahu, Herman Rosenblat, and thousands of others, are deliberately lying to us about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, the Nazis, the 2020 election, the world wars, and thousands of other issues. There are so many Jews lying to us about so many events that we ought to consider that Matityahu deliberately lied also.

It is also interesting to note that Matityahu initially fought against the Romans, but after being defeated, he became a Roman, got involved with the leadership of Rome, and changed his name to the more Roman sounding "Titus Flavius Josephus".

His behavior is similar to the Jews during the past few centuries who have changed their names and claimed to be Americans, British, Germans, atheists, Christians, or Muslims, and who get involved with government officials, wealthy business executives, and other important people, and pretended to be their friends. Some of them have contacted me and tried to become my friend or wife, and they have undoubtedly been doing this to some of you. Therefore, we ought to consider that Jews have been behaving in this deceptive manner for thousands of years.

I think we can improve our understanding of slavery simply by observing the behavior of people in the world today. The emotional and intellectual characteristics of the human brain are determined by our genetic characteristics, and our DNA has not changed much during the past few thousand years, so we can guess at what people were feeling and thinking thousands of years ago simply by looking at people react to similar situations today.

The only significant genetic difference between people today and our ancestors 2000 years ago is that genetic defects have been accumulating. Our distant ancestors would have been in much better physical and mental health, but otherwise they would have had the same emotional feelings that you and I have, and the same intellectual characteristics. Therefore, when trying to understand the behavior of people 2000 years ago, we must look only at the behavior of people today who we regard as being in good mental and physical health.

When we look at the healthy people of today, we can see two events occurring all over the world, and at all times, and without exception. Specifically:

At every point in human history, and in every part of the world, we find some of the people in the primitive societies trying to emigrate to the more advanced societies. There is only a small number of people going the other direction.

However, not all of the immigrants are interested in joining the advanced society. Many of the immigrants have two, undesirable reasons for emigrating:


Those type of immigrants do not care whether they are wanted by the advanced society. Instead, they force themselves on the advanced society. Also, they are not likely to be interested in becoming a team member of the advanced society. As a result, they may continue to speak their original language and follow their original culture.

Since many of the immigrants from the primitive societies have below-average intelligence and education compared to the people of the advanced societies, the immigrants tend to take jobs that require the least amount of skills and intelligence. This results in a significant percentage of those immigrants having low incomes, which in turn causes them to live in crowded neighborhoods with other poor people.

If an alien from another solar system were orbiting the earth and watching the immigrants flow into Europe and America, he would notice that most of the immigrants tend to segregate in neighborhoods that are scattered throughout our cities, and that they tend to follow their original culture. For example, the alien would notice that in the USA:

The alien would notice that most of the immigrants are low in the social hierarchy. This could bring the alien to the conclusion that the immigrants are some type of slave, but that would be a mistake. The immigrants are not slaves, and they are not abused. Rather, they came to our nations voluntarily. They prefer to be a criminal, maid, farmworker, or illegal alien in an advanced nation rather than remain with their own people in their own nation.

As I pointed out in such images as the one below, at this page, we are not abusing the immigrants, or forcing them to work for us. Rather, they are forcing themselves on us. They refuse to go back to their own nation, and when our government deports them, they try to sneak back into our nation. Their behavior is exactly like a rat that is trying to get into our house. It would be more accurate to describe them as human rats, rather than as slaves or abused minorities.

My ancestors were not human rats

English was a foreign language to my relatives when they arrived in the USA from Denmark, Italy, Switzerland, and wherever my father's mother came from, but they learned English, and they made their children learn it.

When my mother was an adult, it occurred to her that she would have picked up Danish and Italian with no effort if her relatives had been speaking it around her when she was a young child. She asked her Italian grandfather why he never spoke Italian when he was around his grandchildren, and his response was something to the effect of, "Because I am an American, not an Italian, and I wanted my children be Americans."

By comparison, the Zionist Jews from Russia had no desire to become Americans. They are a foreign army who came here to deceive and conquer. They were never Russians, either. Rather, they were and still are "Jews", "The Superior Race", and "God's Chosen People".

Some Americans who are, or have been, living in China, have pointed out that many of the Chinese people do not accept foreigners as citizens, especially not foreigners who refuse to adapt to the Chinese culture. However, when the Chinese people emigrate to the USA, they expect us to treat them as citizens and as friends even if they refuse to adapt to our culture. The same hypocritical and selfish behavior is seen with some of the people from India.

The reason why this behavior is so common is because humans are animals. An animal will move to whichever land it regards as the most desirable, and it will push away the animals that are already living there. That is essentially what millions of immigrants are doing in the USA and Europe.

Our selfishness is allowing immigrants to abuse us

To make the problem of immigration more complex, the main reason we allow the "human rats" in is because we are selfish and want to avoid work. Many of the human rats from China helped to build the American railroads, and today millions of Americans are using other human rats for gardeners, maids, nannies, farmworkers, and unskilled laborers. It requires a lot of self-control for us to turn away their offers to work at low wages.

If we can admit that our desire for low cost labor is part of the reason we have problems with immigration, then we will have a better understanding of slavery. Specifically, we should assume that our ancestors had just as much trouble turning away the offers of low cost labor. We should assume that the people a few thousand years ago were behaving virtually the same as we do today, and that the cities thousands of years ago had the same problem that our nations have today. Therefore, we should assume that:

 
I suspect that most of the people that we assume were "slaves" in the ancient cities were not truly "slaves". Rather, they were "human rats" who were choosing to be the low-paid servants of an advanced city rather than remain in the primitive, miserable conditions of their own society. This would explain why none of those slaves bothered trying to escape.

The children of human rats are likely to whine about abuse

To complicate the issue of immigration, once the "human rats" start having children, their children, and especially their grandchildren, will think of themselves as "citizens", and so they are likely to resent their low status and low wages.

When the poor and uneducated people first come to America and Europe, they are grateful to have a low-paying job and live in a home that is miserable and overcrowded. However, their children become accustomed to living with us, and they will think of themselves as citizens of our nation, even if they are continuing to speak a different language and practice a different culture. They will not be grateful for a low-paying job or a miserable home because they did not experience the suffering that their parents were familiar with. Instead, they are likely to believe that they are being discriminated against, or abused.

We should assume that this lack of gratitude among the descendants of the immigrants was occurring thousands of years ago in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. However, the lack of information about life in that era could cause historians to misinterpret the complaints of the children of immigrants as being a "rebellion of the slaves".

The other event that we see happening all around the world, and which will help us understand the issue of "slavery", is that our natural tendency is to push the misfits out of our lives. I suspect that most of the African slaves that were purchased by Europeans and Americans were the misfits that the other Africans decided to sell.

Just as the Caucasian Americans want to believe that their ancestors who left Europe were among Europe's finest people, the black Americans want to believe that their ancestors were Africa's finest people, and that they were kidnapped by cruel slave traders. However, it is not sensible to believe that a small group of slave traders walked into the African villages, grabbed some of their highest quality adults, tied them up with rope, and then carried their victims out of the village without being attacked.

The most likely explanation of where the slaves came from is that the slave traders asked the Africans if they had anybody they were willing to sell as a slave, and the Africans responded by selling their criminals, retards, and misfits.

Were the slaves angry? Or grateful?

If the Africans had not sold those people as slaves, what would have happened to them? I suspect that most of them would have had a miserable and short life, just as we see with the misfits of the USA, Japan, Europe, and all other nations of that era. There was no government welfare in that era, and living conditions were much more difficult than they are today. The misfits in that era had a more difficult time surviving compared to today.

I would bet that if we could go back in time, we would discover that some of those slaves were actually grateful that they became slaves because they had a better life as a slave in the USA than as a misfit or criminal in Africa.

Why did some American slave owners hurt their slaves?

Some of the African slaves were beaten or killed by the Americans who had purchased them. The black Americans use those events as proof that the American slave owners were cruel. However, a slave was a very expensive item. It would have been equivalent to a person today purchasing a private airplane. How many of the people who purchased a private airplane have wanted to beat their airplane with a hammer?

Somebody who is going to spend a lot of money on a slave is not going to want to beat it or kill it. He is going to want to take care of it, and get as much work from it as possible. It makes no sense for a person to purchase a slave for a very high price, and then kill it.

Purchasing a slave and then beating it or killing it is as stupid as purchasing an expensive horse and then beating it and killing it.

A more realistic explanation of why some of the African slaves were beaten or killed is because they were disgusting people. To rephrase that concept, the American slave owners became just as disgusted with some of the African slaves as the African people who sold them.

The Africans in Africa sold the misfits that they did not like. When those misfits became slaves in the USA, their behavior was just as awful as it was in Africa. This is a very important concept to understand. Specifically, a person who has such a mental disorder that he is disliked by his relatives and neighbors in Africa is likely to be disliked by people in Japan, China, Germany, and Hawaii. A retard is just as retarded in the USA as he is in Africa.

It is also important for the people in a personnel department to understand this concept. Specifically, when a person who is applying for a job complains that his previous job was horrible, or that his boss was cruel, or that he was treated like a slave, or that he was unappreciated, it is foolish for the personnel department to feel sorry for the person and believe his stories.

There is not much of a difference between the work environments of most businesses. Therefore, if a person complains about the "difficult" working conditions, or the "brutality" of the supervisor, he should consider the possibility that he is a misfit who is going to complain no matter which business he works for. He should look critically at himself to determine if he is the source of his problems, in which case he might be able to improve his situation by changing his attitudes and behavior.

As I have described in such documents as this, each person is his own worst enemy. It is detrimental to blame other people for our troubles because that prevents us from learning from our mistakes and improving our lives.

Of course, there are some businesses and jobs that truly are unpleasant. When a person complains about a job, we can determine whether the job is truly unpleasant, or whether the person has a problem, by noticing how many other people also complain about the job.

For example, certain jobs at the slaughterhouses cause a lot of complaints, and that would be an indication that those jobs truly are unpleasant to most people.

There are also lots of complaints from people in the entertainment business of drugs, pedophilia, and "casting couches". Dirk Benedict, an actor, has even claimed that there have been "hundreds of murders" in Hollywood. There are so many of those complaints that they should be considered as valid complaints, rather than the senseless whining of a few misfits who are having trouble coping with a normal job.

The point of this section is that some of the employees who complain about "hard work" or cruel coworkers are misfits. One possible reason is that they are genetically so similar to our prehistoric ancestors that they have trouble following schedules, working in a team, following orders, or paying attention to a task for hours at a time. Therefore, if a personnel department feels sorry for them and gives them a job, they are likely to be grateful for only a short time, and then they will start complaining that the job is hard, or that the boss is cruel.

This concept also applies to the Jews who whine about how they have been evicted from one nation after another because of anti-Semitism. Those Jews are analogous to a person who has been fired from dozens of jobs, and who claims that he got fired because all of the people in all of those businesses have a mental disorder.

The more likely explanation of why every society evicts the Jews is because once we get to know them, we become so disgusted that we want to push them out of our lives.

Getting back to the slavery issue, the American and European people did not realize it, but they purchased the human trash of Africa. They purchased low-quality Africans with serious mental disorders. However, when the African slaves reproduced, some of their children were better behaved than their parents, and that resulted in slaves with much better behavior than the original slaves. Those well behaved slaves could cause a historian to make the mistake of assuming that most of the slaves were well-behaved Africans who had been kidnapped by cruel slave traders.

It is absurd for the black Americans to demand reparations for slavery. It would make more sense for the black Americans to be thankful that their ancestors were sold as slaves because that gave their ancestors a better life, and the opportunity to reproduce and raise children in a much more pleasant, advanced society. How many of the black Americans of today would have been born if their ancestors had remained in Africa?

The descendants of slaves who live in the USA should be grateful that they are living with us, but they are not because, just like the children of the illegal immigrants, they were born in this nation, and so they think of the USA as their home, and they regard us as abusing them.

Most of the immigrants from Europe were human trash, also

A similar situation occurred with the Europeans who emigrated to the USA. The Europeans did not sell their misfits as slaves, but some of the Europeans encouraged them to emigrate to the USA.

Most of the misfits were too frightened to travel to the USA in a wooden boat and start a new life in a different culture, so only the most courageous of the misfits decided to do it. Therefore, the USA did not get a random sample of the European misfits. Rather, we got the more adventurous and courageous misfits. When those misfits reproduced, some of their children were much better behaved, and some of them also inherited that high level of courage and independence.

Some American history books mention that when the immigrants from Europe arrived in the USA, they were forced to take low paying, miserable jobs, and they were treated almost as badly as the African slaves. However, a more realistic explanation of why so many immigrants were badly treated is because, as with the African slaves, they were the misfits of Europe, not the high-quality Europeans.

For example, the potato famine caused a lot of people from Ireland who were failures at farming to move to the USA. Those misfits ended up in low-paying jobs, or as criminals, simply because they were Ireland's failures, not Ireland's most talented, responsible, and skilled people.

If every immigrant to the USA ended up in a low-paying job and miserable housing, then we could conclude that the American people truly were abusing the immigrants. However, there were lots of immigrants who walked off the boats and soon started a successful business, or a successful farm, or found a high-paying job.

Many of the Chinese who came to the USA ended up working in low-paying, miserable jobs, but that was not because the American people were racist creatures who wanted to abuse the Chinese. It is because those Chinese immigrants were the misfits of China.

After a few decades of bringing stupid Chinese people into the USA, a lot of Americans had come to the conclusion that this policy was a mistake. President Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 to prohibit the immigration of Chinese laborers and allow only the more educated and skilled Chinese people.

The Chinese Exclusion Act was terminated in 1943, and since then the USA has been returning to its original purpose of being a homeland for the wretched refuse, huddled masses, underdogs, criminals, weirdos, and freaks. During the past few years, most European nations have also been accepting those type of migrants.

Animals do not accept losing.  An animal will fight to its death in order to save itself. Furthermore, they do not follow any rules of behavior. They only follow their emotional cravings. If they were to express their philosophy in words, they would say that they "do whatever it takes" to achieve their goals. They do not consider anything to be "cheating", and they do not care about the consequences to other animals.

Humans inherited that same intense craving to achieve our goals and win our competitions. When we fail at something, we become angry or we pout. We do not accept losing in a calm manner.

We also inherited the attitude of doing whatever it takes to win, but we have the intelligence to realize that this attitude can be destructive. Therefore, we developed some rules of behavior. We have defined certain activities as illegal, immoral, cheating, or cruel.

Due to our genetic differences, some people are better able to accept losing, and some people are more willing to follow the rules. If we could measure those two qualities, we would create two different bell graphs. The people who have the most trouble dealing with failure and following rules can be very destructive because they are likely to do whatever it takes to get what they want. For examples:

Most people will not commit a serious crime in order to get what they want. Instead, most of us will just pout or become angry. We would all have a more pleasant life and a more pleasant social environment if everybody could exert some self-control and accept failure in a more calm and peaceful manner.

Our inability to accept failure is one of the reasons that "diversity" is impractical. When we put two or more groups of people into a competitive event, and when the groups have different abilities, one group will lose more often than the others. Since we have trouble accepting failure, the group that loses is not likely to look critically at itself and accept its failures as due to its particular genetic limitations. Instead, they are likely to pout and/or become angry at whichever group wins the most often, and accuse them of cheating or discrimination.

This concept has been known for thousands of years, but we have been applying it only in a few situations. For example, almost all athletic events practice "age discrimination" and "sex discrimination." Some sports also separate athletes according to their weight. We also have separate sports for the people with physical handicaps. However, we do not separate the different races of people because we are trying to pretend that all races have identical abilities.

If we were to practice diversity with athletic events, we would mix men, women, different ages, midgets, physically handicapped people, and everyone else in the same events, and we would pretend that everybody is equal to one another. This would result in certain people always winning, and certain people always losing. It would create anger and pouting among the people who always lose.

We create a miserable social environment for ourselves when we practice diversity because we are not identical to one another. If humans did not care about losing a competition, then diversity would be possible, but we do not want to lose. Therefore, diversity will always result in a lot of pouting, hatred, cheating, anger, and revenge. This creates a miserable social environment for everybody.

An interesting example of this problem is the free enterprise system. The free enterprise system practices diversity because it puts everybody into the same competitive struggle for money, regardless of whether they are male or female, children or adults, or British, Africans, or Chinese. The free enterprise system does not discriminate against anybody, or favor anybody.

The women, for example, must compete against the men in a free enterprise system, but men are almost always going to beat women in a competitive battle to be a successful engineer, executive, scientist, technician, farmer, machinist, and construction worker. The women will be able to beat the men in the jobs that women are better at, such as the jobs that require finger dexterity, but the women are likely to ignore their successes and become upset with the jobs that they fail to get.

If a woman cannot understand and accept that she lost a competitive battle with a man because the man is better suited to that particular job, she might react by assuming that she lost the battle because of sexism, glass ceilings, or discrimination. This in turn can result in her pouting, hating, trying to get revenge on men, and/or giving her such a bad attitude that she cannot form a stable marriage.

All societies separate men and women in athletic contests because we are willing to acknowledge the evidence that men and women have different physical characteristics, but every society is refusing to acknowledge the evidence that there are emotional and intellectual differences between men and women, and this results in every society putting men and women into competition with one another for all of the non-athletic events.

Our policy of being "fair" and "equal" to men and women is causing fights between men and women. We would have a more pleasant social environment, and better relationships, if we switched to studying the differences between men and women, and experimenting with treating men and women differently.

Likewise, every society is refusing to acknowledge the evidence that different races have different mental abilities, and this results in every society forcing all of the races to compete with one another. This is resulting in some races whining constantly about discrimination and racism.

Certain races of Africans dominate basketball, but the other races of Africans, Chinese, European, and Indian are not whining about discrimination because even the stupid people can understand that those particular African races truly are superior at basketball. Why can't we acknowledge that there are differences in our mental abilities, also?

In a democracy, and in a free enterprise system, the leaders pander to the people, so we have leaders pandering to the women and minorities that are constantly whining about discrimination. This makes the situation worse by encouraging anger, pouting, and whining.

Another reason that a democracy is hopeless is because it allows people to vote even if they have made such terrible decisions for themselves that they have not enjoyed much of their life. These people should be described as the "losers" in life, even if they acquired a lot of money or fame, because they failed to deal with life's issues and figure out how to set up a nice life for themselves.

Most people seem to believe that a person is a "success" if he has lots of money, but I think it would be better to consider a person a "success" if he figures out how to enjoy life. The people who end up dying while still in a state of frustration, disappointment, anger, regret, and sadness should be described as losers. Those people failed with life, and they are not likely to be effective voters. Two reasons are:

1) The losers tend to develop a destructive attitude.


2) They could not provide leadership for themselves.


This Constitution believes that we will provide ourselves with higher quality government officials when we restrict voters to people who have been such a success in dealing with life's problems that they have figured out how to provide themselves with a pleasant life.

The voters should not be "victims" who are angry, whining about discrimination, or blaming other people for their troubles. They should not be people who repeat the same mistakes over and over. Rather, they should be people who learn from their failures and find solutions to their problems.

An example of how the losers tend to give us government officials who pout and hate is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. On 12 January 2020 she created this hour-long speech in which she complained about white supremacy, the deception in the media, and that President Trump is trying to cheat in the elections. One of her remarks (at about 53 minutes) is:

She suggests that the government create an agency to protect us from false information. However, one of the purposes of this document is to point out that facts and fiction are whatever a human mind wants them to be. How can a government agency protect us from false information when we all have a different opinion on what false information is?

A government agency will protect us from the information that the officials of the agency regard as false, but that is not necessarily what you or I would consider to be false. For example, she accuses Trump — not the Democrats! — of cheating during the 2020 elections.

This Constitution does not want any government agency, organization,or person to protect us from false information because that is authorizing somebody to dominate our thoughts and control what we think. This Constitution wants to do the exact opposite. Specifically, encourage curiosity, research, and discussions.

The only way to improve our understanding of slavery, immigration, the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, the deterioration of Roman society, Anne Frank's diary, and other historical events is to prohibit all types of censorship, and encourage analyses of all historical information. Everybody should be encouraged to look critically at historical facts because:


We should not censor information simply because some people whine that the information is false, racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, or denying climate change. We also should not let ourselves be intimidated by people who claim that their feelings are hurt by investigations.

We should restrict the influential positions to people who encourage us to explore the universe. They should not dampen, censor, or suppress our questions, curiosity, or criticism.

Our natural tendency is to bow or curtsy before our leaders, such as Theresa May does in the photo to the right, even if our leaders have nothing intelligent to say, and never provide any useful leadership.

As I pointed out in the previous document of this series, in order for us to get better leaders, we must have enough self-control to change our attitudes towards leadership.

We must push ourselves into treating our leaders as "people" or "employees" rather than as gods, Kings, or Queens. We must be willing to accept the fact that they don't know much more than you and I, and that they often make mistakes.

For example, in 2012, an Italian court convicted seven scientists for failing to predict an earthquake. This problem began when some of the Italian people who live in an earthquake zone put pressure on scientists to predict earthquakes. The scientists, and other people in leadership positions, should have told the people that the technology to predict earthquakes does not exist, but the scientists could not control their arrogance. Also, everybody is in the habit of pandering to the public, rather than providing leadership. So the scientists made their predictions, and when an earthquake occurred that was not predicted, the citizens reacted with anger, and filed a lawsuit against the scientists.

Although that is an extreme example of people who expect the authorities to be all-knowing gods, and who react with anger when the authorities make mistakes, this problem occurs frequently with medical doctors. We want a doctor to have the answers to our medical problems, and to be perfect with his surgical procedures. We do not want a doctor to make such remarks as:

Most people would react to that type of remark with fear, and they would go to another doctor, and they would continue going to other doctors until they found one who claimed to know what the problem was. The people who react in that manner are putting pressure on doctors to pretend that they know more than they know, and that their surgical procedures are closer to perfection than they really are.

We want doctors to be perfect, but they cannot be perfect because they are people. Expecting doctors to be perfect is causing them to pretend to know more than they do, which is deceptive. That deception will make us feel good, but it interferes with our ability to understand and deal with our medical problems. We need to know the truth, not be titillated with pleasant fantasies.

Likewise, when we assume that surgeons are perfect, we can become upset or angry when a surgeon makes a mistake. Some people react to the mistakes by filing lawsuits. Unfortunately, lawsuits do not solve problems or improve our medical care. Rather, they make our situation worse.

The lawsuits cause doctors to purchase expensive insurance policies, which increases the cost of medical care. It also results in hospitals and doctors making patients sign legal forms in which they agree to the potential side effects and consequences of a surgical procedure.

This Constitution does not allow lawsuits in Kastron, and it does not want doctors to pander to the public. Instead, the government should force the public to accept a more realistic attitude towards medical care. Specifically, the public is to be pressured to acknowledge that doctors are people, and that they make as many mistakes as the rest of us, and that many of our medical procedures are "experiments" or "educated guesses" rather than "100% proven solutions".

The Kastron schools are to prepare children for society, and one of the brief lessons the schools should teach is that all medical procedures and drugs have complications and risks, and that anybody who wants a medical procedure must be willing to take the risk. By making that attitude an official part of the school curriculum, a society would not have to waste its resources or time on the printing and signing of thousands of legal documents, and nobody would be allowed to file lawsuits against doctors.

A doctor should not have to pretend to know everything, or waste his time on warnings that medical procedures have risks. When a doctor makes a mistake, the quality control department should investigate in order to understand why it occurred, and use that knowledge to try to reduce such mistakes in the future. There should be no attempt to punish the doctor, or reward the victim.

We should stop trying to control people

Doctors would learn more about human health if we stopped trying to control people's use of medical and recreational drugs. Our attempt to stop people from abusing drugs is causing people to lie about their use of drugs, which can cause medical researchers and doctors to make mistakes in their interpretation of our health issues. The people who experiment with or abuse drugs, such as "Dr. Tony Huge", are "voluntary laboratory rats", and we ought to take advantage of the situation by learning from their experiences rather than punishing them.

Our prehistoric ancestors didn't have any organizations. After they settled into cities, various businesses, churches, sports groups, and other organizations began to form. Some of those organizations turned out to be troublesome, such as the organizations involved with gambling, sex, drugs, and weapons. The people reacted by prohibiting some organizations, and putting others under regulations.

The organizations that have been prohibited or regulated were those that most people disliked. If the public approved of an organization, it was permitted. To rephrase this concept, people do not care what effect an organization has on society. Rather, they judge an organization according to how it affects their emotional feelings.

This Constitution has a different attitude. Specifically, we should not care what people want. We should allow organizations to exist only if they can show evidence that they are beneficial to society. The organized religions, for example, are extremely popular, but this Constitution considers them to be detrimental, and so it prohibits them.

Everybody in Kastron is free to believe whatever they want to believe about the universe, so everybody is free to believe in whichever gods they please, or that Jesus walked on water, or that the universe was created by a Big Bang. They are even permitted to believe in dark matter, quarks, wormholes, time travel, parallel universes, reincarnation, ghosts, clairvoyance, women's intuition, and astrology. Everybody is even permitted to believe that men and women are unisex creatures.

This Constitution does not give any government official, or any other person, any authority to stop somebody from believing something, even if it is something stupid. However, organized religions are not a "belief". Rather, they are "organizations". There is a significant difference between having a "belief" and forming an "organization".

This Constitution gives everybody the freedom to believe whatever they please, but nobody has the freedom to form whatever organization they please. All organizations must justify their existence by showing evidence that they are beneficial to society.

There are a lot of reasons as to why the organized religions are considered detrimental. The remainder of this document will explain the most significant reasons.

Animals and humans have a strong craving to follow their leader, and to be frightened of anything different. These emotions suppress our curiosity and independence. They cause us to be afraid to think new thoughts and to explore the world. They cause us to be obedient and submissive to our leaders.

Our emotions were beneficial in prehistoric times, but today they cause people to become so submissive that they are easily abused and manipulated by crime networks. Today we need leaders who encourage thinking, analyses, curiosity, the verification of facts, and the exploration of the world. 

One reason that organized religions are prohibited is because they suppress our curiosity and independence, and they demand obedience. They encourage humans to behave like sheep. We need the opposite type of leadership. We need encouragement to explore and analyze. Our leaders should also encourage us to give job performance reviews to leaders, and to replace the worst performing leaders, rather than be their obedient servants.

The organized religions do not provide their members with freedom of speech. Their censorship today is not as extreme as it was when Galileo was alive, and it's not as extreme as it is with Twitter, CNN, and YouTube, but this Constitution regards all censorship to be unacceptable. We do not want small amounts of pedophilia, and we should not tolerate small amounts of censorship.

This Constitution wants all organizations to encourage cooperation, teamwork, and friendliness, but the organized religions cause a society to break down into what are essentially arrogant tribes that fight with and insult one another.

The sarcastic remarks and insults from the religious people are as disgusting and unacceptable as the employees of Google who refer to people with different opinions as a "Nazi", and who encourage one another to punch Nazis.

Since each religion believes that they are 100% correct, they do not tolerate competing religions or atheism. The religious people frequently boast about being tolerant and loving, but very few religious people practice what they preach.

The bad attitudes of religions is most noticeable when we compare the organized religions to other organizations. For example, nations regularly get together for the Olympics, and different branches of the military get together for football games, and some of the larger businesses arrange for their employees to get involved with sports activities in which they compete with other businesses. Schools also arrange for activities in which the students of different schools compete in sports and science projects.

Businesses are in competition with each other, and nations are frequently fighting with each other, but those organizations show more of an interest in cooperating with each other than the organized religions. Even the Democrats and Republicans of Congress have an annual baseball game (photo to the right).

How often do the religious leaders arrange for their members to get together with other religions or atheists for recreational events? Has there ever been a baseball game between Buddhists, Jews, Scientologists, or Muslims? Have the different religions ever gotten together for a hike in the forest, a picnic, a dinner, or a discussion about religion?

The organized religions might be the most unfriendly, arrogant, and intolerant of all organizations. They do not encourage their members to be friendly with the other religions, or with atheists. Instead, they encourage their members to be arrogant jerks who believe that every person who is not a member of their particular religion is a misguided idiot, or possessed by the devil. The KKK and Nambla might be more tolerant of differences of opinion.

Some of the religions try to eliminate their competitors by sending missionaries around the world to push their religion on other people. The missionaries are not educating people, or encouraging discussions, or encouraging research. Rather, they are behaving like non-violent armies that are trying to conquer their enemies.

Imagine a world in which every organization was sending missionaries around the neighborhoods to convince us to join their organization. Imagine not only all of the religions doing this, but all of the businesses, nations, sports groups, and social clubs.

Imagine if the KKK, Nambla, the ADL, the SPLC, and other groups were sending missionaries into our neighborhoods to convince us to join their organization. And imagine all of the sports groups also sending missionaries to our homes to convince us to join their particular sport. And imagine that Intel, IBM, Sony, Toyota, and other corporations were also sending missionaries to our homes to convince us to quit our job and apply to their organization.

Also, imagine if the teams that create the South Park cartoon, Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune, and other TV shows and movies were sending missionaries to our homes to convince us to watch their particular television show or movie. Finally, imagine missionaries from the governments of Uganda, France, and Canada coming to our homes to convince us to leave our nation and apply as an immigrant to their nation.

If every organization was doing that, we would have missionaries coming to our home all throughout the day, every day. Most people would become so furious that they would demand the government to stop it.

Why do we allow the religions to send missionaries into our neighborhood? It is because of a characteristic of animals that I mentioned years ago, which is that we have a tendency to ignore "small" problems and "make lemonade". However, this is stupid, animal behavior. We should not tolerate disgusting behavior simply because only a small percentage of the people are doing it.

This Constitution encourages people to have discussions, look critically at issues, and do research, but nobody has the right to deceive, manipulate, intimidate, or pressure people into believing or doing something. It is especially detrimental to allow organizations to pressure people because we have a natural desire to follow a crowd of people, which gives the organizations an advantage in manipulating people's behavior. The larger an organization is, the easier it is for them to manipulate people, which allows them to grow larger, which in turn makes it easier for them to manipulate even more people.

We have a natural desire to compete with one another, and we should exploit this characteristic for beneficial purposes. Competition should be considered a valuable technique for inspiring us to do a better job, and to look for ways to improve our products, cultural activities, and behavior.

We should not tolerate people or organizations that try to suppress their competitors. We should teach children that they should learn to enjoy and benefit from competition.

We cannot have a productive discussion when there is only one point of view. In order for a discussion to have some value, there must be some competing ideas, and each person must be free to explain his ideas. Also, a discussion is worthless if it becomes an argument over right or wrong, or if the people insult one another.

Scientists understand this concept. A scientist does not insist that his particular ideas are perfect, and that everybody else is an idiot. Rather, the scientists look seriously at the opinions of other scientists, and they discuss their ideas. They try to learn from one another, rather than ignore or insult one another.

The organized religions behave in an opposite manner. The organized religions teach their members that their religious beliefs are 100% correct, and that there is no sense in listening to other opinions since all of them are false, and there is no sense in trying to improve their religion since their religion is already perfect.

This Constitution believes that we must look critically at something in order to improve it. Therefore, everybody is encouraged to create critical analyses of themselves, their opinions, the organizations they belong to, and the culture that they follow. The purpose for this is to encourage everybody to look for ways to improve themselves, the organizations they belong to, their city, and their culture.

However, the organized religions do not encourage constructive criticism. Actually, they do not even tolerate the concept that it is possible to improve their beliefs. Instead, the organized religions promote the arrogant attitude that their particular beliefs are 100% correct. Since it is impossible to improve upon perfection, they regard criticism and suggestions for improvement to be nonsense, insults, or hatred rather than as constructive criticism or as suggestions for improvement. They allow criticism only of the competing religions.

The organized religions encourage their members to pray whenever they have problems, rather than encourage them to analyze their problem, discuss the problem, and experiment with solutions.

For example, Lin Wood, a lawyer, has a lot of evidence that Democrats cheated in the 2020 presidential election, and he claimed on Twitter that some government officials and other people are being blackmailed, but he is encouraging people to pray in order to solve these problems. For example, at the end of this tweet, (his Twitter account has since been censored), he wrote:

On 20 January 2021, after God failed to keep Trump in office, he encouraged us to continue praying. On 23 January 2021, he posted a message about "WHEN WILL THE ARRESTS START?" to encourage us (or was it to encourage himself?) to continue praying rather than give up. A portion of that message is:

Lin Wood, Sydney Powell, and other people have provided a lot of evidence that there was an extreme amount of cheating in the 2020 election, but we will not stop the cheating by begging God to deal with the criminals.

The organized religions are encouraging adults to behave like children who beg Santa Claus for gifts.

To make the situation worse, some of the people who encourage prayer seem to be Pied Pipers who are leading the gullible sheeple into a "prayer pen" so that they waste their time praying rather than doing something useful.

Praying to stop crime or corruption is destructive because it allows the crime networks to thrive and grow. The organized religions are helping the crime networks by encouraging lots of people to pray rather than do something useful. How many of the people who encourage prayer actually believe that praying is the solution to our problems, and how many are Pied Pipers who are working with the crime networks?

The organized religions pressure their members into obeying the religion without asking questions about it. This reduces the chances that the members notice some incredibly idiotic aspects of their religion, such as what a god is supposed to do when people have conflicting prayers. For example, if two Christians of equal righteousness are trying to get a particular job, spouse, or house, and each of them is praying to God to give it to them, how will God decide which of them should get what they want?

Furthermore, what happens when people of different religions have conflicting prayers?

For example, what happens when the Jews pray to their particular god to help them with their cheating, deception, murder rituals, and pedophilia, and the Christians pray to their particular god to stop that abuse?

Are all of the different gods floating around in heaven together? If so, do they resolve those conflicts through fist fights? Or by playing "Rock, Paper, and Scissors"?

Regardless of how the gods deal with conflicting prayers, it should be obvious that – as of February 2021 – the Christian God is a tremendous disappointment. The Jewish God is beating Him over and over, century after century.

To be fair to the Christian God, perhaps the reason He answers so few prayers is because so many prayers are stupid. Perhaps he is disappointed with the Christian people. For example, in response to the 9/11 attack, millions of Christians prayed for the defeat of the terrorists who live in caves, and who were hiding "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in those caves. Perhaps those millions of idiotic prayers convinced the Christian God to retire, or become an atheist.

Imagine if technicians, carpenters, farmers, doctors, and other people believed that prayer was the best solution to problems. For example, imagine that your kitchen sink is clogged and you call a plumber to fix it. He comes over to your house, gets on his knees, and prays to his particular god to unclog your sink. Then he goes to his next customer and prays for them.

Or, imagine that you hire a catering service to provide food for your wedding, and they bring five loaves of bread, two fish, and some water, and then they pray to Jesus to "feed the multitude" and turn the water into wine.

What is the difference between: a) A plumber praying to a god to unclog a kitchen sink. b) A caterer praying to Jesus to feed everybody at a wedding. c) A voter praying to a god to stop the cheating in the elections, the pedophiles, and other crimes and criminals. The difference is that we would be disgusted and angry with the the plumber and catering service, but many people admire and praise a person who prays to stop wars, corruption, pedophiles, and crime networks.

We set standards for people who want to drive automobiles, fly airplanes, and perform dentistry, and we need to set standards for people who influence our lives and our future. For example, we should demand that any person who wants to be in an influential position in society, such as a voter or a government official, be able to understand the following two concepts:

Imagine sending your child to school, but instead of providing your child with useful information, the teachers spend each day organizing the children into "Prayer Groups" that pray for God to educate them. At the end of each school day, the teachers give the children prayers to take home and practice, rather than homework assignments in math, science, or history.

Or imagine that you are suffering from severe pains in your abdomen, and you go to the hospital. While the hospital staff waits for the doctor to arrive, they get on their knees and pray that you survive. Soon the doctor arrives, examines you, and discovers that your appendix has ruptured. He looks through his Bible for the appropriate prayers, and he writes a "Prayer Prescription" for you, sends you home, and then he goes to his next patient.

A doctor, teacher, or plumber who tried to solve problems through prayer would be fired. He would be regarded as unacceptably stupid, ignorant, or mentally ill. However, we admire and praise the government officials, voters, and religious leaders who try to solve problems with prayer.

People with courage do not need to pray

After the 9/11 attack occurred, thousands or millions of Americans reacted by displaying drawings of eagles and boasting that "These Colors Don't Run". However, almost 20 years later, the majority of those people are still hiding from the evidence that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives.

Another crisis is occurring as I write this document; specifically, the evidence that there is a phenomenal amount of cheating in the 2020 elections. Once again we find many Americans reacting to this problem by boasting about their courage, posting images of eagles, and claiming that they will not tolerate the cheating. Unfortunately, most of the people who boast about their courage are actually very frightened, and they are reacting like a gorilla that is pounding its chest. They are trying to make themselves look courageous and powerful in the hope that the criminals will become intimidated and give up. The Americans who post those images of eagles should make them more realistic by adding the section below the eagle in the image to the right.

It is natural for women and children to be passive and submissive, but the adult men should provide leadership to their family. Men should also provide leadership to businesses, government agencies, recreational activities, cities, and nations.

Unfortunately, the organized religions put pressure on the adult men to be as passive and submissive as the girls in the illustration to the right.

When adult men behave like girls, they allow themselves to be dominated by a small number of religious leaders. This would be wonderful if those religious leaders were truly what they claim to be, which is the certified spokesmen for a supreme being, but none of them are.

I would bet that if we could measure mental illness, we would discover that all of the religious leaders would classify as having significant mental disorders. In such a case, the people who follow them are following lunatics rather than people who can provide intelligent leadership.

Some of the people who became religious leaders a few centuries ago may have been honest, respectable people who were simply too ignorant to understand how absurd their religious beliefs were, or, in the case of Gregor Mendel, got involved with a church simply to get financial support. Today, however, everybody has such an extensive education about science that the only people who seem to be interested in becoming religious leaders are the pedophiles, the Zionist Jews who want to infiltrate other religions, and the people who have some type of significant intellectual or emotional disorder.

The religions promote the belief that all humans are the wonderful creations of a supreme being, and that the criminals, lunatics, retards, and mentally ill people began life as wonderful people, just like the rest of us, but for some mysterious reason they picked up behavioral problems during their life. The religions believe that a misfit can be converted back to a wonderful person with the appropriate religious education, exorcism, or punishment.

Since the religions believe that everybody is a wonderful person, the religions promote the attitude that we should follow "The Golden Rule". The religions also promote the attitude that we should forgive and forget all of the abuse because abusive people are actually wonderful people, and that it's not their fault that they are abusive.

This Constitution is based on the theory that humans are just a species of monkey, and with that philosophy, exorcisms and punishments are a worthless form of torture, and The Golden Rule is allowing defective people to abuse us.

This Constitution believes that every animal, plant, and human is just a haphazard jumble of genetic characteristics, and that we all have genetic defects, flaws, and limitations. Trying to fix our genetic problems through punishments is a waste of our time and resources, and it creates a miserable social environment for everybody. The defective humans need to be put on restrictions, evicted, or euthanized.

The communist governments have tried but failed to eliminate the organized religions. Why is it so difficult to stop people from creating and joining organized religions? The reason is because the organized religions appeal to our emotions, as I mentioned here.

The social animals do not want to live alone. They feel safe and comfortable only when they are a member of a group. Also, they have a craving to follow an older male who is strong, courageous, and excels at fighting. Furthermore, the different groups are in competition with each other for food and land, so their natural tendency is to regard other groups as potential enemies.

Humans inherited those crude characteristics. As a result, we have an emotional craving to become a member of a group in which our leader is an old, wise, strong, brave, and intelligent man.

The organized religions make us feel good. We can titillate ourselves for hours every day by telling ourselves that our supreme being loves us, forgives our bad behavior, and will answer our prayers.

We could describe the organized religions as group masturbations, or as orgies in which people stimulate themselves and each other. If this behavior was beneficial, then it would be acceptable, but there are no benefits. Rather, the organized religions encourage destructive attitudes and behavior.

The reason it is difficult to convince a religious person that his beliefs are idiotic and detrimental is because his attraction to religion is emotional, rather than the result of thinking.

This concept might be easier to understand with our sexual feelings. There are no intelligent arguments that we can provide to a homosexual to convince him to become a heterosexual, or to convince a heterosexual to become homosexual. A person's sexual desires are due to his emotions, not his intellect.

Likewise, it is useless to provide an obese person with intelligent reasons for reducing their food consumption because their choice to eat excessively is not due to an intellectual decision. They eat excessively because their mind prefers to follow their emotional feelings rather than their intellect.

Another example of this concept are the Americans who believe that a gun will protect them from crime and government corruption. They will not respond to intelligent reasoning because their decision to have a gun is emotional, not intellectual.

They want a gun for the same reason that a frightened child wants to hold onto a teddy bear. They will not respond to intelligent reasoning for the same reasons that a frightened child cannot be given intelligent reasons to let go of his teddy bear.

When we point out to them that crime and corruption is rampant in the USA even though there are millions of Americans with guns, and that there is much less crime in Japan and Europe even though they don't have many guns, they ignore that rather obvious fact because they are following their emotional feelings, not their intellect.

In regards to religion, our ancestors were so ignorant about science that they could have easily thought about the universe and come to the conclusion that one of the religions is correct. Today, however, the people who are choosing religion over science are doing so because of their emotional attraction to religion, not because they thought about the issue and came to the conclusion that religion is more sensible.

If a person who wants a gun cannot exert enough self-control to think about the issue, or if he does not think very well, then his emotions will dominate his decisions, and he will want a gun no matter what we say to him. Likewise, if a religious person cannot control his emotions, or if his thinking ability is not very good, his emotions will dominate his decisions, and he will be attracted to religion regardless of what we say to him.

We cannot learn from our mistakes if we believe that we are perfect. Since the organized religions insist that their beliefs are 100% perfect, they refuse to believe that they make mistakes, which prevents them from learning from their mistakes.

For example, the religions believe that the solution to starvation is to provide handouts of food. Some churches in India have been doing this on an extremely large scale. For example, one of the churches supposedly provides free meals to 100,000 people every day. (Here is a video of it.)

The end result of their policies is that they are increasing the number of unwanted children, retards, homeless people, uneducated people, and hungry people. That in turn increases the number criminals, drug addicts, suicides, and victims of pedophile networks.

The religious people are increasing the number of people who are suffering, but they insist that their policies are perfect, so they will not look critically at them. They will not experiment with different policies because it is impossible to improve upon perfection.

The organized religions boast that they are beneficial, but what have they improved in our lives? The organized religions have never helped any society understand or reduce its problems of starvation, homelessness, crime, divorce, corruption, or any other social problem.

I don't think that the organized religions were intended to improve human life. I suspect that the organized religions first began to evolve when cities became larger than several thousand people. Some of the men who gave lectures on religious issues began to attract dozens of people.

Since men have a craving to be at the top of the hierarchy, they enjoyed their status, and that would cause them to want to increase the number of people who were listening to them. Those men quickly realized that they could use the people to help build them a larger home, or a place to gather for religious lectures. They also realized that they could convince the people to donate money, food, or services to the religious organization.

Regardless of how the organized religions came into existence, all of them share a certain characteristic. Specifically, they create a team, but the purpose of the team is only to listen to lectures, have faith in the religious leader, and donate money to his church. The team is not involved with doing things to improve life for the members, or doing things to improve the city, or doing things to help the children prepare for adulthood. The attitude that the other religions are false or evil causes the members to avoid or fight with people of other religions. Each religion is essentially a group of submissive peasants who are serving a king, or a tribe of prehistoric savages.

The members build giant palaces for their religious leaders, even though some of the members are living in overcrowded and miserable conditions. The members also donate money to their religious leaders, even though their leaders often have much more money than the members. The members also sometimes donate free services to the church. The photos below show a church and a mosque, and they are just two of thousands of expensive structures that people have built for their religions.

Consider which buildings are the most famous, such as Notre-Dame, Taj Mahal, Neuschwanstein Castle, St. Basil's Cathedral, Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore, Blue Mosque of Sultan Ahmet, Sistine Chapel, and the pyramids of Egypt. Most of the impressive buildings were created for religious leaders or monarchs, not for "the people".

This Constitution wants all organizations in Kastron to serve the people. The people should not be serving the organizations, or pampering a few religious leaders, government officials, or business executives with mansions. We should be serving the human race.

Everybody in Kastron should be working to improve life for everybody in the city. We should put our resources and labor into making Kastron a spectacular city with beautiful buildings, parks, pathways, and recreational activities that all of us can enjoy.

It might help you to understand why we are attracted to the organized religions if you look at animals. Animals do not want to work, learn, or think. If we provide food to wild animals, they will come back for more rather than work for it. They will start behaving like pet dogs that spend their time taking naps, and expecting us to provide them with food and care.

Some biologists pointed out that monkeys could probably speak a language if they wanted to. The idea that monkeys can talk might seem bizarre, but we can determine that their assumption is sensible simply by observing humans, and realizing that we inherited our behavior from monkeys. We can understand the monkeys by looking at ourselves, and we can understand ourselves by looking at monkeys.

The majority of people do not have much of a desire to work, think, learn, or experiment with changes in their life. For example, children have to be pressured by teachers and parents to learn something in school, and when most children graduate from school, they almost cease learning.

Most people do not want to work, either. They fantasize about becoming so wealthy that they can quit their job and spend their life being pampered by people who provide them with food, homes, electricity, and maid services. The ideal life of most people is similar to that of a pet dog, a medieval king, or the pampered child of wealthy parents.

Why do we fantasize about lounging and being pampered by servants? It is because we are monkeys. Animals do not have any initiative to work, learn, or think. They do something only when they are stimulated by their emotions. When nothing is stimulating them, they do nothing, or they take a nap.

When their hunger emotion is stimulated, it makes them feel uncomfortable, and that causes them to search for food. They do not search for food because they realize that they need food. Rather, they want to stop the unpleasant feeling of hunger, and they want to enjoy the pleasant feelings that they receive from eating.

Likewise, when they spend too much time taking a nap, their muscles stimulate unpleasant emotional feelings, which causes them to get up and do something with their muscles, such as chase after one another. When animals "play" with each other, they are not doing it for "fun". They are doing it because some emotion has been stimulated.

Humans also react to our emotional feelings, but we have a greater desire to do something during our leisure time. We refer to this characteristic as an "initiative". However, we do not have equal levels of this mysterious initiative.

If we could measure everybody's desire to learn, think, or work, we would create a typical bell graph. At one extreme are the people with the least initiative. Those people would be the most likely to spend their leisure time lounging, and fantasizing about being pampered by servants.

At the other extreme are the people with the strongest desire to learn, think, and work. They spend a lot of their leisure time doing something rather than lounging. Instead of fantasizing about being pampered, they fantasize about doing things.

To complicate the concept of "initiative", certain mental disorders can cause people to do things, creating the illusion that those people have a lot of initiative. An example is Michael Phelps, who said that he spent a lot of time training to be a swimmer because of his mental problems.

I suspect that all of the people who become billionaires are similar; namely, that their mental problems pushed them to achieve that goal.

How do we distinguish between a person who has the initiative to do something, and a person who does something because his brain is defective? We do not yet know enough about the human mind to make such a determination, but my suggestion is to notice whether the person is focused on titillating himself with no concern for the long-term effect on his life or the lives of other people.

For example, there is evidence that many, or all, of the billionaires and Hollywood celebrities have become a blackmailed puppet of a crime network. Why would anyone choose to become a puppet of criminals? Most of us would consider that to be a miserable life because of such problems as:

Why would anyone want to torment themselves by become a member of, or the blackmailed puppet of, a crime network? There seem to be a lot of reasons, such as:

However, I think that the people who voluntarily choose to join a crime network are suffering from a serious mental disorder. They may have a lot of initiative, also, but it is their mental disorder that causes them to regard the titillation of wealth and fame to be worth the suffering of a blackmailed puppet.

I would not be surprised if some of them eventually regret their decision after discovering that the wealth and fame is not eliminating their misery, and that life as a blackmailed puppet is more unpleasant than they had assumed, but after they join the network, are they allowed to get out?

Anyway, the point I want to make is that when we find a person putting a lot of effort into doing something, we cannot assume it is because he is an admirable person with a lot of initiative. He may be mentally disturbed, and he might be struggling to find relief from his misery.

Many of the people who travel around the world appear to have an initiative to do something, and they seem to have some curiosity of other cultures, climates, and animal life. However, my casual observations of tourists suggests to me that most of them spend their time in comfortable hotels, restaurants, retail stores, and swimming pools.

Most tourists are just looking for a simple entertainment; they are not interested in exploring or learning about the area. Some of them are obnoxious, disregard the rules of the area, and leave litter everywhere they go. An example are the tourists who get too close to the bison in Yellowstone Park (photo to the right).

The Internet has hundreds of documents that list some of the annoying things that tourists have done around the world. If you are unaware of this issue, do a search on "rude tourists". One example is this.

I don't think many of the people who travel are truly curious about the world. I think the two primary reasons people travel is:
1) Boredom

2) Status

As mentioned in this previous document, this Constitution does not want the businesses in Kastron to encourage travel. Instead, the city should scatter small and comfortable media rooms around the city. They would have high quality, large video screens. They would allow families and small groups of friends to essentially travel around the earth, underwater, and eventually to the moon and other planets, but without leaving the comfort of our city, and without being bothered by insects, traveling, or weather.

When animals have had plenty to eat, and when they don't have any problems to deal with, such as predators, they relax. Some of them take a nap, and some groom themselves or a member of their group, and others chase after each other. They have no initiative to do something during their leisure time.

It is also important to note that wild animals are in much better mental health than humans. Not many wild animals have ADHD, bipolar problems, schizophrenia, or paranoia. As a result, not many animals have trouble sitting still during their leisure time.

By comparison, people are not breeding cats or dogs properly, and this is resulting in the genetic degradation of pets. This is resulting in an increase of pet dogs and cats that have trouble sitting still during their leisure time. Those defective animals spend some of their leisure time doing things, such as running back and forth, eating excessively, or fighting.

To a human observer, the animals that do something during their leisure time would seem to have an initiative, whereas the other animals would appear to be "lazy". However, it would be more accurate to describe the animals that cannot sit still as being analogous to the Hollywood celebrities and billionaires who cannot stop struggling for absurd amounts of wealth and fame, or the obese people who cannot stop eating.

The majority of people don't have enough initiative to make them suited to this modern world. For example, most people have so little initiative to learn and think that they almost stop learning and thinking as soon as they get out of school. Furthermore, when they are in school they will learn only what they are pressured to learn, and nothing else. They do the bare minimum necessary.

Most people also have so little initiative to work that they waste a lot of their life on fantasies of becoming so wealthy that they can quit their job. Some of them go so far as to rob banks, kill their spouse for his life insurance policy, or embezzle money from their employer.

It was acceptable for prehistoric people to have a low initiative to learn, think, and work, but people today with a low initiative are going to suffer.

Our prehistoric ancestors did not need much initiative to work. They spent each day hunting for food because of the stimulation from their hunger emotion, and because of the complaints from their wife and children for food.

The situation today is considerably different. People today do not have to work. It is possible for us to survive as a parasite in a variety of different ways, such as staying home with our parents throughout our adult life, or finding a spouse that will do all of the work for us, or getting on a government welfare program, or inheriting lots of money, or starting a charity or think tank and begging for donations.

Furthermore, the work that our prehistoric ancestors did was intellectually simple. For example, the men would occasionally get together to chase after a wild pig or lamb, but the jobs men do today are significantly more complex and advanced. Men today need to learn skills, follow orders from supervisors, coordinate their actions with their coworkers, and follow a lot of laws and rules.

This problem will get worse in the future as machines take over more of the simple jobs. The people in the future will need greater skills, and they will have to follow laws and rules that are more complex. This will result in an even larger percentage of people who do not like, or cannot do, any of the modern jobs.

Every nation already has a problem with people who cannot or will not get a job, follow the laws, learn useful skills, or follow orders. Those people want access to modern houses, foods, video games, cell phones, health care, and other technology, but they cannot or will not contribute to the production or maintenance of any of those things. They want somebody else to do the work. Most of those people would probably have been well adapted to life 10,000 years ago, but they are parasitic misfits in a modern society.

Some of the misfits get involved with crime networks, religions, governments, charities, think tanks, political groups, and other organizations in which they can get away with doing nothing of value. Those misfits have a detrimental effect on morale and attitudes because they encourage other people to join them in their whining about jobs, bosses, and "rat races".

The percentage of misfits who complain about work and fantasize about being pampered is going to increase in every generation if we don't start restricting reproduction to the people who are better suited to this modern world.

The people who complain about school or jobs are not necessarily stupid or incapable of learning a useful skill. Rather, some of them are so emotionally similar to a monkey that they don't want to think, learn, work, or follow schedules.

Most people were born with a healthy body that is capable of a lot of physical work, but only a small percentage of the population has the initiative to put a lot of effort into developing or maintaining their physical abilities.

Most people prefer to spend their leisure time like the animals. Specifically, lounging, eating, and napping. Most people do something with their muscles only when their muscles become sore from lounging or sitting. As a result, most adults allow their body to become overweight and weak, and some people become quite sickly, also.

Years ago I pointed out that we are not abusing animals when we put them in pens and let them lounge around all day. This is what the animals want to do. We can determine this simply by looking at humans.

Humans don't have much more interest in working, thinking, and learning than a monkey. We prefer to relax all day. When we get tired of lounging and decide to do something, we work at whatever pace we please, but we will consider ourselves to be "hard-working" regardless of how much effort we put into the job. We do not want to become fat, sickly, or weak, but that is a side effect of doing what we want to do.

Humans were designed to be under constant pressure by nature. We were not designed to be pampered. This characteristic is the reason that I have suggested in other documents that we design our culture so that we are encouraged to get out of our home and do something. We need some pressure to get some exercise, and to meet other people. If we are allowed to do whatever we please, we behave like pet dogs.

My proposal to design Kastron as clusters of tall buildings surrounded by parks, and to make the homes small, and not provide them with kitchens or dining rooms, is to inspire people to get out of their home during their leisure time, and to get out of the office or factory during their lunch time, and enjoy the city and the people.

We cannot force people to get exercise or socialize, but we can encourage such activities by designing a city that is beautiful, easy to travel around, and has so many social and recreational activities that we are inspired to leave our home and do something.

Furthermore, by restricting immigration and evicting troublemakers, we can create a city in which we enjoy one another, rather than fear one another, and this will also give us more of an incentive to get out of our home and do something, and allow children do things on their own.

Likewise, my proposal to arrange for courtship activities and prohibit flirting elsewhere is to put pressure on the men and women to put some effort into thinking about their marriage. Without pressure, we are likely to follow our emotional cravings, which is to impress one another and not put much thought into compatibility.

The majority of people appear to be stupid and uneducated, but it is an illusion. They have such a low initiative to think, learn, discuss issues, look critically at themselves, and experiment with new activities that they never reach their intellectual potential.

For example, one of my aunts insisted to me that Donald Trump was elected in 2016 because some Russians posted some advertisements on Facebook. She picked up that belief from the television journalists, and even though she is above-average in intelligence and education, she believes that idiotic theory simply because she has no interest in thinking about it. She prefers to behave like a stupid animal that follows the other animals.

If we could turn a knob on her brain to increase her desire to think and explore, she would quickly realize that an election will not be altered by a few advertisements that only a tiny percentage of voters have seen.

Or, if the government required all voters to attend a school course in which they had to write a report about the Russian collusion issue, and then discuss their analysis to the class, my aunt and other people would be under pressure to think about the issue, and some of those people would certainly come to the conclusion that the Russian collusion theory is idiotic. However, the voters are not under any pressure to think about or discuss any issue, so most of them don't. Instead, they mimic the people that they admire and trust, such as the television journalists.

Most people are more intelligent and talented than they appear, but most people never reach their potential because they don't want to. Most people prefer to spend their leisure time like an animal; namely, lounging, taking naps, and entertaining themselves with food, sex, babies, status, and shopping.

One of the reasons free enterprise is much more productive than Marxism is because free enterprise puts us under pressure to work. We don't want to work, but we do a much better job when we are under pressure to do so. However, the pressure of a free enterprise system is to make profit, so this Constitution will change that to a competition to improve life in the city. This will allow us to get the benefits of competition, namely, putting us under pressure to work, while at the same time putting us into a competition that is truly beneficial to us.

Many animals have the ability to make different noises for different situations. Prairie dogs for example, make a few different noises for different types of predators and situations. We could describe their noises as a simplistic language that has a very small vocabulary. Monkeys also make noises, so we could describe them as having a simplistic language with a few words.

Animals make noises only when they are emotionally stimulated. For example, a Prairie dog will make the noise that they associate with a hawk when they see a hawk, but as soon as the hawk has flown by, they return to remaining silent. They do not have the initiative to experiment with language.

If we could turn a knob to increase the initiative of animals, we would discover that they are physically and mentally much more talented than they appear to be. For example, if some of the Prairie dogs, wolves, or tigers developed an initiative to become an athlete, they would occasionally practice some athletic event. This would result in them being able to do athletic events that none of the other animals can do, and which none of us would have believed was possible. We might discover that a Prairie dog is capable of doing a double backflip.

Likewise, if the animals had more of an initiative to think, some of them might have developed a simple language, or discover arithmetic. I would not be surprised if gorillas have the intellectual ability and finger dexterity to weave baskets.

However, animals do not have much of an initiative to do anything. As a result, the animals never achieve the full potential of their body or mind.

By understanding animals, we can understand humans, and vice versa. The majority of people appear to be a group of stupid, sheeplike creatures who don't care that they are being abused by crime networks or pedophiles, but if we could analyze their DNA, we would discover that they actually have a lot more intelligence and talent.

Why are so many people fighting over material items? Why are so many husbands and wives arguing with each other, and sometimes killing each other? Why are so many people having trouble controlling their consumption of food or alcohol? Why are so many people lying to us, deceiving us, and cheating us?

Why don't we work together for the benefit of all people? Why don't we share our beautiful world with one another? Why don't we treat one other as friends? Why do the mainland Chinese want to fight with and steal from the Taiwanese rather than cooperate with them? Why do hordes of migrants want to get into the USA and Europe rather than improve their own nation? Those questions are similar to:

The answer to these questions is: our genetic characteristics evolved for a vicious, competitive battle for life, so our behavior is dominated by fighting, arrogance, selfishness, suspicion, paranoia, and other qualities that interfere with cooperation, friendliness, team work, constructive criticism, honesty, and exploration.

Most adults have the intelligence necessary to realize that we benefit much more when we work together for the benefit of all people. Even stupid people can understand that a team can accomplish a lot more than selfish individuals who cheat one another. So why don't we work together? Why don't we follow the policy that makes the most intellectual sense? Why do so many people choose to fight, cheat, steal, pout, and hate?

Some people choose the idiotic policy because they don't want to think, and other people realize that we should work together but don't have enough self-control to ignore their emotional cravings and do what is the most intellectually sensible.

The end result of not thinking, and not having much self-control, is that most people follow their emotions, just like an animal. They cannot resist their craving to steal items, grab at women, and get into fights over status.

To add complexity to this issue, the human race is degrading genetically, and this is causing every generation to have more intellectual and emotional defects, thereby resulting in an increase in abnormal emotional cravings and irrational thoughts. The mentally defective people cannot be expected to behave in a sensible manner.

The crime, corruption, inefficiency, loneliness, divorce, pedophilia, and other problems are not the result of poverty, ignorance, the devil, sexism, or racism. We cannot reduce these problems by giving handouts to poor people, putting people through rehabilitation programs, or by punishing people. These problems are due to people who choose to behave in dishonest, destructive, selfish, and irrational manners. The only solution to this problem is to restrict reproduction so that each generation has a higher quality mind.

There is no way to make a person develop an interest in learning, thinking, working in teams, being honest, or sharing material wealth with other people. For example, most of us have spent many years in school, and we experienced lots of rewards and punishments from our teachers, parents, and other students. However, none of those years of schooling made us want to learn, think, explore, or experiment. The small minority of people who have an above-average desire to learn were born with that characteristic; the schools did not give it to them.

To complicate the issue, our environment has an effect on our attitudes. For example, if a person with a strong initiative to think and learn is sent to a religious school, he might become a misfit as a result of asking questions about religion. He might even complain that the teachers are idiots for believing that Jesus could walk on water. The teachers might regard him as a bad student, or as a troublemaker, and he might be punished by the teachers because of his bad attitude. However, even though he dislikes the school, and even though he is considered to be a bad student, the school has no effect on his brain. He will continue to have a desire to learn and think.

Sending a child who has a strong desire to learn and think to a religious school will not transform him into a sheep-like, religious fanatic who has no desire to think. Instead, he will be a misfit or troublemaker in that school.

Likewise, the people who have a strong initiative to work were born with that desire. They did not get that desire from their social environment. Conversely, the people who do not like to work, be a team member, or follow schedules, cannot be made to enjoy such things.

Our environment can influence whether we develop our talents, but it cannot give us something that we were not genetically designed with. And our environment cannot remove something that we were genetically designed with.

For example, if a person has an above-average initiative to work, but if he gets into a job that he is not well suited to, or if he works with people he does not like, then he will not like that particular job, but his desire to work will remain the same. Putting him into a unpleasant job will not cause his brain to rewire itself and remove his desire to work.

The point of all this is that we must learn to accept people for what they are. We have to stop trying to control and change people. We have to acknowledge that many people today simply do not have the emotional characteristics to fit into this modern era. They become criminals, parasites, or misfits that cause trouble for themselves and other people.

We cannot make people want to learn, think, work, be responsible, or be honest. Punishments and rehabilitation programs cannot fix their problems. Rather, it torments them, which can make the situation even worse.

The only way we can help people is to provide them with information about their problems. We can also put people under pressure to learn, think, and do things. However, if the information has no effect on them, and especially if they rebel against the pressure, we must give up and accept them for what they are. We cannot force somebody to change to what we want them to be.

If a person wants to spend his time lounging and being pampered by servants, that is what he is going to fantasize about regardless of what we do to change his attitude. We can provide those people with information about how they will benefit by developing a better attitude, but if they have no desire to experiment with changes to their life, then they will continue fantasizing about being pampered by servants.

Likewise, a man who grabs at women on crowded trains, or pesters women at the office, retail stores, beaches, or parks, is going to continue pestering women unless he wants to change, and unless he has the self-control to change. And a person who cannot refrain from stealing items is going to continue having that problem unless he has the desire and ability to change.

This concept also applies to people who are involved with intellectual activities. For example, a scientist who is so arrogant or envious that he has trouble looking critically at his theories or favorably at competing theories will have trouble learning from his mistakes and from the successes of other people, thereby preventing him from reaching his potential. There is nothing we can do to reduce his arrogance or envy.

Likewise, a scientist who is frightened of the unknown will have a tendency to resist or ignore all of the "radical" ideas, thereby preventing him from reaching his full intellectual potential. There is nothing we can do to increase his courage to explore the world.

This Constitution allows people to believe whatever they please. For example, it is acceptable for a person to believe that the dinosaurs went extinct because of a meteor, and it is just as acceptable for somebody else to believe that the dinosaurs went extinct because Noah let the large dinosaurs drown.

It is also acceptable for a person to believe in some type of religion as a way of helping them deal with problems. For example, some people remind themselves of biblical passages, such as Galatians 6:14, in order to control their arrogance. Although it would be best if everybody could cope with modern life without religion, drugs, or other aids, that use of religion does not hurt other people.

However, this Constitution does not give anybody the freedom or authority to push his opinions on other people, ridicule other people's opinions, slander other people's opinions, or form organizations that try to control people's opinions. Nobody has the right to suppress curiosity, critical analyses, discussions, or exploration. People are encouraged to give critical analyses of one another's opinions, but nobody has the right to insult anybody.

As mentioned in a previous section, the organized religions are unacceptable because they suppress freedom of speech, discussions, and exploration. They are as unacceptable as:

An organization is not allowed to exist simply because some people enjoy it. Every organization must show that it has a benefit to society that outweighs its disadvantages. The organized religions are popular because they appeal to our emotions, but they are destructive to society rather than beneficial.

This Constitution requires all organizations to show evidence that they are beneficial to society. It does not matter whether people like or want the organization. Every organization must encourage productive attitudes and behavior. No organization is allowed to suppress their competitors, interfere with free speech, dampen our curiosity about the world, or try to control the thoughts of other people.

There are a lot of organizations in the world today that would be prohibited with this Constitution. For example, the ADL, the political groups, the think tanks, and the SPLC don't produce any products or services but instead try to manipulate our opinions and culture.

It is acceptable for an organization to do research on human behavior or culture, but the ADL and the other groups are not doing research. An organization that does research will provide us with detailed descriptions of where their data comes from, and they will provide us with evidence to back up their theories. They will also allow other scientists to verify their data and their conclusions.

However, the ADL and the other groups are not providing us with data or supporting evidence. Even more important, they try to stop us from verifying their data and conclusions. They want to arrest people who investigate the data for "Denial". That is not the behavior of a scientist who is doing research. That is the behavior of a criminal who is trying to eliminate his critics.

If the ADL was truly a group of intelligent, honest people, they would encourage people to verify their data and conclusions about the Holocaust, Anne Frank's diary, the attack on the USS Liberty, and other events.

There are certain issues that are referred to as "controversial". A controversial issue is an issue in which a significant percentage of the population will not tolerate conflicting opinions about, or criticism of. The intolerant people react with anger, hatred, crying, pouting, tantrums, and sometimes violence. Their unpleasant reaction causes people to become afraid to discuss the issues in public. For example, most people are afraid to discuss such issues as:

When people are afraid to discuss issues, they inhibit progress on those issues. We cannot learn about something if we are afraid to analyze it and discuss it.

This Constitution wants the government to create a social environment in which there is no such thing as a controversial or forbidden issue. Everybody should be free to discuss any issue they please. Nobody should be afraid of being ridiculed, arrested, or insulted for asking a question or discussing an issue.

In order to allow people to feel safe to discuss issues, this Constitution gives the quality control department the authority to pass judgment on whether any of the citizens or organizations, including the government officials, are trying to suppress, intimidate, or manipulate conversations or critics. The goal of the quality control department is to maintain a social environment in which everybody feels safe to discuss whatever they please.

This Constitution wants everybody's curiosity to be stimulated and encouraged, not suppressed. The people who interfere with free speech and curiosity should be considered detrimental to society, and they should to be put on restrictions or evicted. We should not tolerate the censorship of opinions or the suppression of critics that we see coming from the executives of Google, Twitter, the ADL, and CNN.

This Constitution promotes the attitude that most of our information belongs somewhere in the middle of the fact and fiction spectrum, and, aside from some math facts, not much of our knowledge can be considered 100% factual. Therefore, nobody should claim that his opinions are factual. Most of our knowledge should be regarded as incomplete and inaccurate. Everybody should be encouraged to investigate and look critically at any issue they please, and try to learn more about it.

The issue of free speech is complex because there is no way for us to determine when somebody is making a mistake, and when they are trying to manipulate or deceive us with false information. For example, I suspect that most of the people who are promoting the "flat earth" theory are doing so in an attempt to manipulate us. They should be investigated, and our legal system should pass judgment on whether they truly believe the earth is flat, or whether they are trying to manipulate us, in which case they should be arrested.

In order to create a society that provides us with free speech, and which protects us from crime, we need to restrict the leaders and security personnel to the people who show an excellent ability to differentiate between mistakes and crimes.

A scientist who deliberately manipulates data in order to create a certain conclusion is not "expressing his opinion" or making a "mistake". Rather, he is trying to manipulate other people's opinion about the issue, so he should be considered guilty of a crime.

Likewise, the people who investigated the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and have concluded that miniature hydrogen bombs brought the buildings down should be investigated because I suspect that they are trying to manipulate us, in which case they are not "expressing an opinion" or "making a mistake". Rather, they should be arrested for committing a crime.

Another example of this concept is that the Jews who demand the arrest of "Holocaust Deniers" should not be considered as "expressing their opinions" on the issue, or trying to protect the public from false information. Rather, those Jews should be considered as trying to suppress investigations of history.

There is no valid reason to suppress an investigation of any historical event. The only people who have an interest in suppressing history are people who want to hide the truth from us. This Constitution gives everybody the right to know the truth about history. People who try to censor or suppress history are regarded as criminals who are interfering with our understanding of the human race.

A person who hides historical events from us should be considered as unacceptable as a zoologist who hides information about a particular animal, thereby giving everybody an incorrect understanding of the animal.

To complicate the issue of free speech, we must distinguish between when a person is "expressing an opinion" and when he is "slandering" somebody, or "making a false accusation," or "deceiving" people.

I have mentioned this issue before, but I want to summarize it here. Specifically, when somebody accuses us of being anti-science, an anti-Semite, or a sexist, we must make a distinction between when they are truly expressing an opinion and when they are trying to hurt the person, in which case they are to be considered a criminal who is committing slander, false accusations, or deception.

When it occurred to me in January 2002 that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives, I assumed that all I had to do was notify people of the evidence, and most of them – including most of the police, military personnel, teachers, scientists, and government officials – would react by passing the information around in order to expose the crime, and demanding that the crime be investigated, and the criminals be arrested.

Unfortunately, my assumption turned out to be extremely inaccurate. I was especially surprised to discover that the police did not seem to care, nor did any of the supposedly intelligent and educated people, such as college professors, government officials, scientists, and engineers.

As of January 2021, hundreds of millions of people around the world have seen the evidence, but most of them ignore it. Although some of them are ignoring it because they are working with the crime network, either voluntarily or because of blackmail, there are millions of other people who ignore the information simply because they prefer to behave like an animal; specifically, they want to titillate themselves with food, sex, babies, material items, trophies, pornography, and awards. They don't want to deal with the complex problems of a modern society.

An organization is only as good as its members can make it. An organization can tolerate a certain number of people who behave like animals, but in order for a modern society to be efficient and pleasant, we must raise standards for the citizens, and especially for the people in influential positions. Three of the behavioral characteristics that are acceptable to animals but detrimental to a modern society are:


We need to keep people with those behavioral characteristics to a minimum. It is especially important for us to restrict the influential positions to people who can demonstrate an ability to provide us with intelligent analyses to the issues we face today. For example, here are two issues that we should expect our leaders – including voters – to provide intelligent analyses of:

1) How honest is Wikipedia?

2) Did we benefit from the censorship?

The people who cannot make wise decisions about the honesty of Wikipedia or Zignal Labs should not be allowed to vote or get into any influential positions. We should restrict the influential positions to people who show an above-average ability to identify deception, cheating, and lies.

One of the complexities of modern life is determining whether a person is a friend or an enemy. I have given some examples of this dilemma in other documents. For example, when the ADL or SPLC advocates the arrest, firing, or censorship of Holocaust deniers, racists, or anti-Semites, are they trying to protect us? Or are they trying to deceive, manipulate, and exploit us?

The people who cannot make wise decisions about these issues are as helpless as animals that are easily lured into traps. They will be manipulated by criminals, but they will be manipulated voluntarily. Since they will not realize that they are manipulated, they will defend the people who are abusing them.

They should not be allowed to vote, or have any influential positions of society, because they are easily fooled into helping their enemies.

There are a few remarks on the Internet that most people would allow to be censored, such as those that advocate violence. However, there is no benefit to censoring even the most senseless demands of or calls for violence. As I have pointed out many times, the proper reaction to problems is to investigate the issue, try to figure out what is causing the problem, and then experiment with methods to reduce the problem in the future.

We will not improve our lives or solve any problem simply by deleting messages that encourage violence. The people who posted the messages will still be here, living among us. They may continue to post angry messages, in which case we will have to continue to censor them, resulting in the ridiculous situation in which we spend the rest of our lives censoring them. Or they might become so angry that they get involved with violence.

If we had proper leadership, we would investigate why people are posting the angry messages. I suspect that we would discover that most of the people posting angry messages are one of two groups:

1) Criminals

2) Honest citizens who are angry

These concepts are similar to what I've mentioned in other documents about feminism. Men react to the complaints of feminists in different ways, such as:

None of those reactions are sensible. The most sensible reaction to angry women is to investigate why they are angry. I think that an investigation of the angry women would show us that most women belong in the same two categories that I mentioned in the previous paragraphs. Specifically:

1) Criminals

2) Women who are frustrated with life

We are not going to help the women by pandering to the feminists, or by ignoring or censoring them. We need to investigate why men and women are having so many problems today, and we need to experiment with changes to our culture to reduce the problems.

Likewise, when children complain about being abused at daycare centers, Hollywood, schools, and churches, it is idiotic to ignore or censor them. We should investigate their complaints.

History also provides us with examples of how stupid it is for government officials to ignore or censor the complaints of health problems by employees. For example, businesses tried to censor the complaints about tetraethyl lead and radium.

To summarize, we should not tolerate people who want to censor or suppress us. Censorship is not leadership. Censorship is a trick to eliminate competitors and critics. The proper solution to a problem is to investigate the cause of the problem.

In Orwell's 1984, the government made the public spend two minutes every day listening to some particular message. There was also a hate week during which they had to listen to even more propaganda.

Unfortunately, not many people realize that we are being treated in a very similar manner. For example, when the 9/11 attack occurred, most of the journalists and many government officials, college professors, and other "important" people told us that we had been attacked by a few Arabs who live in caves. The journalists repeated that message all throughout the day, and they did so day after day, week after week.

In 2001, most of us trusted the journalists, government officials, college professors, and other important people so we did not wonder why they were repeating the same information over and over. Today, however, some of us realize that we were being treated similar to the public in Orwell's 1984.

In Orwell's story, the people were pressured to regularly attend "hate speeches", during which they would listen to deceptive news reports. However, the people trusted the news reports, and this caused them to become hysterically angry at some imaginary enemies.

Immediately after the 9/11 attack, most of the Americans were behaving exactly the same, except that they were doing it voluntarily as a result of regularly watching deceptive television news reports.

Tens of millions of American citizens became so angry at those imaginary terrorists that they supported a war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

When the French put up some resistance to the wars, many Americans became angry at the French, also, and they tried to get revenge on the French through such idiotic methods as referring to "French fries" as "Freedom Fries".

Although most of us were fooled by the 9/11 attack because we were so trusting of our authorities, some of us eventually realized that we had been lied to, and that realization made it more difficult for us to be fooled again. However, most people did not learn anything from the 9/11 attack. Instead, they continued to trust the journalists, government officials, scientists, business executives, and other people who lied about the 9/11 attack. The end result is that they were manipulated over and over, and they are still being manipulated.

The hatred that millions of people in various nations have for "Orange Man" should be used as proof that the majority of people cannot deal with the complexities of this modern world. They are very easily manipulated by criminals.

Most people have the intelligence necessary to understand that they are being lied to, but they resist thinking, looking critically at themselves and their authorities, and considering the possibility that other people have more intelligent opinions.

As a result of their crude mental characteristics, they have trouble learning from their mistakes, and learning from other people. This allows the criminals to fool them over and over, and with the same tricks.

The fact that millions of people believe lies about the 9/11 attack, the world wars, Anne Frank's diary, and the Apollo moon landing should be used as proof that democracies are hopeless. Most people are so easily manipulated by criminals that they should not be allowed to vote or have any influential position.

None of us would allow a child to determine our future, so why should we allow adults to determine our future when they are as helpless as a child?

How extreme would the deception have to be before the majority of people realized that they were being deceived, abused, and cheated?

For example, what would happen if Twitter, the ADL, Google, the FBI, and Facebook put posters around the nation that were identical to those of Orwell's 1984, such as the poster to the right?

How many people would realize that those posters were attempts to instigate hatred rather than protect us from "enemies"? How many would notice that there is no supporting evidence to justify accusing those people of being "enemies"?

Furthermore, of the people who notice the deception, how many of them would care enough to expose and stop the abuse? And how many would react by praying?

The modern world is so complex that we need a legal system to resolve disputes between people. An example that is occurring right now, January 2021, is the dispute over whether there was cheating during the 2020 presidential elections. Sidney Powell and some other lawyers have filed lawsuits in which they presented evidence of the cheating, but the courts responded by dismissing their evidence as nonsense, and insisting that the elections were fair.

The journalists have also repeatedly insisted that the 2020 election was honest, and that all of the accusations of cheating have been "debunked". They describe the evidence of cheating as being disinformation, false accusations, and as desperate attempts by Trump to remain in office.

It is not easy to determine whether a piece of information is valid evidence of a crime. A legal system has to determine whether something is valid evidence by analyzing it and passing judgment on it. Therefore, the conclusions of a legal system will only be as intelligent and honest as the people involved with the decisions.

A legal system is just an organization of people, so the decisions that the legal system makes depend entirely upon the minds of the people in it. An obvious example of this concept is that if we allow a group of pedophiles to dominate the legal system, then the legal system is not likely to investigate accusations of pedophilia, at least not among themselves.

In a democracy, the legal system is only as useful as the voters can make it. Unfortunately, most voters do not have the desire to analyze their legal system, or demand the replacement of the officials who are showing signs of incompetence or corruption. Most Americans did not even consider Ruth Ginsburg to be too decrepit from old age to be a Supreme Court judge.

The end result of allowing the majority of people to control the US government is that we have a legal system that is so corrupt that it:

It is possible that the public tolerates a lot of corruption because a lot of the people cannot see the corruption. This could be the result of several problems, such as:

A person who wants to vote should demonstrate a desire and ability to understand the problems that we suffer from today. For a few more examples of what a voter should be aware of and be capable of saying something intelligent about:

Although each of us has different athletic abilities, our athletic abilities do not change much from one day to the next, except, of course, when we are injured or sick. As a result, we can depend upon a person to have a particular athletic performance on a regular basis. For example, an athlete who is among the best in a particular field will always tend to be among the best.

Most people can understand this concept, and this allows them to make intelligent decisions about when an athlete is trying to deceive us about his abilities. For example, when an athlete is not performing as well as he usually does, some people suspect that he is faking the lower level of performance in order to cause his team to lose. This type of deception has happened so often that we have several expressions for it, such as "match fixing" and "sports fixing".

This deception occurs with intellectual competitions, also, but how many people can understand it? For example, journalists, government officials, FBI agents, and other people claim to be ignorant about the evidence that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives. Are they really that naive? Or are they faking ignorance and/or stupidity?

An even more complex example of this deception is the judges in our legal system that create confusing documents. When they want to deceive us about a court case, they can create a confusing document. Most people are so accustomed to being overwhelmed with modern technology that they make the mistake of assuming that a legal document is confusing because they lack the intelligence and/or education to understand it, or because they don't have the time to understand it. This causes them to assume the document is valid, thereby allowing the judge to get away with a fraudulent and deceptive conclusion.

For example, in 2018 a group of people filed a lawsuit against Katie Couric for editing a video interview in which she asked the people a question, and then inserted nine seconds of silence before they answered, in an attempt to create the impression that they had to spend nine seconds thinking about the question. The judges responded with this 13 page document about the case. On page 11 the judges wrote:

On the last page the judges wrote:

The judges admitted that the journalists did "questionable" editing that resulted in creating a false impression, but the judges did not consider the editing to be illegal because it "simply does not rise to the level" necessary to be regarded as a crime.

How do we determine whether an event is serious enough to be considered a "crime"? Imagine living in a society in which all of the journalists are routinely inserting silence in the interviews of people that they don't like. For example, imagine they interview you and ask you your name, and then they insert nine seconds of silence before you answer. And then they ask what you do for a living, and they insert another nine seconds of silence. Imagine that when you complain to the courts that the editing was a deliberate attempt to give you a bad image, the judges respond:

Would you describe a court that supports "questionable" editing as providing us with intelligent guidance and ensuring that our news reports and interviews are honest?

It's also interesting to consider how the judges, lawyers, executives of Twitter, and journalists would react if you or I edited interviews of them in a similar manner. Would they allow us to treat them in the manner that they treat us? Would they tolerate our questionable editing?

If the voters cannot make wise decisions about whether the courts are providing us with intelligent guidance, then our society will eventually be dominated by criminals.

I think that the main reason our courts are getting away with abusing us is because they create confusing documents to disguise their abuse. For example, I think the document that the judges created for the Katie Couric case is confusing, and I don't think it is because I lack a legal education. I think the judges deliberately wrote it to be confusing in order to prevent people from noticing that they are justifying criminal behavior.

I would describe the courts as doing the intellectual equivalent of "sports fixing". Specifically, they pretend to be incapable of expressing their ideas clearly. It is similar to faking stupidity or ignorance, except they create a confusing document in order to hide their crimes.

Although no society yet has set high standards for government officials, judges, business executives, professors, journalists, or other people in influential positions, most of them are above-average in intelligence and education. Most of them are capable of expressing their opinions in an understandable manner.

We expect the performance of the top athletes to always be excellent, and we should expect people in leadership positions to always provide us with intelligent documents. We should watch out for the intellectual equivalent of "sports fixing", in which a journalist, government official, business executive, or other leader pretends to be incapable of expressing himself clearly, or pretends to be ignorant of some commonly known information.

If we look through all of the documents that a particular judge or journalist has created during his life, we will discover that they are capable of expressing themselves clearly when they want to. Therefore, when they create a confusing document, we should not assume that it is confusing because we are too stupid or uneducated to understand it. We should instead consider the possibility that they are analogous to an athlete who is pretending to have temporarily lost his talent.

We must raise standards for people in influential positions and demand that they routinely provide us with intelligent guidance and analyses. We should not tolerate documents from them that are ignorant, idiotic, or confusing.

When somebody in a leadership position produces a confusing or idiotic document, we should identify the confusing sections and give him the chance to edit his documents, but if his edited versions are no better, we should consider one of two possibilities:

1) Incompetence

2) Deception

Keep in mind that my criticism of the USA is simply because I live here and am familiar with it, not because other nations are superior. Actually, many other nations have governments that seem much worse in some respects. For example, although I don't know much about Thailand, this report says that a court in Thailand sent a woman to jail for 43 years for insulting the King of Thailand, and this occurred in January 2021, not the Middle Ages.

The United Nations claims that Thailand has a serious problem with human trafficking and sex slavery, and this site claims that "ladyboys" are in "every major city". Years ago a Norwegian man, Trond Halvorsen, tried to convince me to take a trip to Thailand to have sex, which I consider to be additional evidence that Thailand is an international destination for weird and illegal sex. However, despite all of the corruption, crime, pedophilia, human trafficking, and suffering in Thailand, the Thai courts are more concerned with censoring, suppressing, and torturing the people who criticize their monarchy!

The courts in Thailand seem to be much more corrupt than the US courts, but that is not something we should boast about. I often hear Americans responding to criticism with a remark similar to: "But the USA is better than other nations!" That is not a valid reason to do nothing about our corruption and inefficiency. That is analogous to a teenage boy who is told to clean his room, and he responds: "But the boy who lives next door never cleans his room, and he occasionally rapes his mother, so be grateful that I am better than him."

During the impeachment trial of Donald Trump in February 2021, Representative Jamie Raskin said that Trump "assembled, inflamed and incited his followers to descend upon the Capitol". How many voters can make a wise decision about whether the journalists and government officials are correct that Trump "whipped his supporters into a frenzy with the 'big lie' that their votes had been stolen, and urged them to fight"?

I would accuse the Democrats and journalists of whipping people into a frenzy with the 'big lie' that the election was honest.

In January 2021, Joe Biden gave a speech in which he made a lot of accusations, such as claiming that the people who had gathered around the White House on 6 January 2021 were not "protesters":


When the BLM and Antifa groups protest in the streets, they are "peaceful protesters", but when Trump supporters have a rally or protest, no matter how peaceful, they are "terrorists" and "extremists".

I would accuse the journalists and Joe Biden of "slandering" people when they refer to them as terrorists, insurrectionists, and extremists. However, our legal system allows them to do that, and so do most of the voters.

How many voters can make a sensible decision about when a journalist or government official is giving us an intelligent analysis of a person, and when they are slandering their critics?

When the 9/11 attack occurred, the FBI and other government officials confiscated security camera videos and other cameras. We were allowed to see only the few photos and video segments that they chose for us. For example, instead of allowing us to see the video from the Pentagon security cameras, they showed us only five frames, and it is possible that they edited those frames, or made them blurry.

Likewise, there are a lot of security cameras in Washington DC, and a lot of cell phone cameras, but we have been allowed to see only a few video segments of the "riotous mob" at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021. How many voters noticed or cared that most of the videos are hidden from us?

A free enterprise system expects the consumers to make wise decisions about which journalists are providing the most accurate news, but how many consumers can see a difference in the way the journalists reported the five deaths that occurred at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 compared to how they report the deaths of black criminals, such as Rodney King or George Floyd? Furthermore, of the consumers who notice a bias, how many of them care enough to discuss it with their friends, or cancel their subscriptions to the deceptive media companies?

This article has a photo that shows people beating a policeman, and the event is described as "an unidentified police officer is beaten by a mob...during the riot." How many consumers can see a difference in how the journalists reported the beating of that police officer compared to how they reported the beating of Rodney King and other black criminals?

Two police officers committed suicide in response to the Capitol "riot", but the journalists don't show any interest in investigating why they would want to commit suicide, or whether they were murdered.

That article also claims that the FBI was expecting violence that day but did nothing to stop it. And in this article the lawyer for Thomas Caldwell, one of the "rioters", says that he has a top secret security clearance and had been a section chief for the FBI for about a year. However, the journalists do not consider the possibility that the "riot" was a false flag operation arranged by the FBI and/or other supporters of Biden.

“Then I yelled out 'MAGA', and I convinced some of the gullible fools to throw rocks at the police. Now the public thinks the Trump supporters are violent maniacs!”

The journalists avoid bringing attention to the concepts of a "false flag operation" and a "wolf in sheep's clothing" because those tricks are most successful when people are ignorant of them. If more people understood those tricks, a lot of people would figure out that the 9/11 attack was a "Jew in Muslim Clothing" trick, and that the attack on the USS Liberty was the failure of a "Jew in Egyptian Clothing" trick.

A democracy requires the majority of voters to make wise decisions about our government leaders and policies, but most people have trouble taking care of themselves and their family. It is understandable for teenagers and young adults to be confused and make lots of decisions that they regret, but by the time people are 50 or 60 years old they should have figured out how to set up a nice life for themselves. Unfortunately, most of the older people are still making decisions that they regret because of their lack of interest in looking critically at themselves, thinking, and/or their inability to control their emotional cravings.

It is absurd to expect people who make a mess of their own life to make wise decisions about the even more complex problems of a modern nation. And how can we expect people who have trouble resisting crime opportunities to provide us with an effective legal system?

The article with the transcript of Biden's speech claims that one of Biden's goals is "restoring the reputation of the Justice Department". How many voters are capable of making a wise decision about whether the Biden administration will truly restore the reputation of the Justice Department, or if they will modify the Justice Department to make it easier for them to arrest and censor their critics?

How many voters can make a wise decision about whether the people who are accused of "democracy denial" are truly our enemies and should be suppressed, censored, or arrested?

Millions of voters are mimicking the deceptive remarks that they heard on the television news. Allowing those people to determine our future is as stupid as allowing parrots to determine our future.

Anybody who believes that a democracy can provide us with high quality leadership, or an effective legal system, should be disqualified from voting.

We must raise standards for voters, and other leaders, but that requires finding a lot of people who have the courage to experiment with culture.

We design athletic contests with quality control procedures to reduce cheating. For example, some athletic contests require the athletes to submit to drug tests, and some contests require cameras so that the judges can make more accurate decisions. The rhythmic gymnastic contests go even further and allow the athletes to complain about their score, in which case the judges are required to review video of their performance and determine if their score should be adjusted.

Even stupid people can understand the concept that athletic events should be fair, but no society yet applies this concept to other types of contests, such as political, legal, scientific, or economic contests. As a result, every society is allowing incredible levels of cheating in those types of contests, which in turn allows crime networks to dominate our governments, businesses, science policies, and courts. Two examples are climate change and political elections.

The people who promote the theory that humans are causing the earth's climate to become warmer as a result of our production of carbon dioxide are trying to censor and suppress their critics. Some of them also slander their critics as "climate change deniers" or "anti-science forces", and some advocate arresting, firing, or punishing their critics.

If a scientist truly had an intelligent theory about climate change, he would not benefit by censoring his critics. Rather, like a talented athlete, he would benefit by setting up a discussion in which he and his critics are given a fair opportunity to explain their opinions and compare them to one another.

A "discussion" can be regarded as a "contest" or "competition" of opinions. If the contest is fair, a truly talented scientist would impress us, and it would expose the flaws and mistakes of the alternative theories.

The people in influential positions should not be allowed to defend a scientific theory through censorship, accusations of "denial", or intimidation. Scientists must defend their opinions through explanations. A scientist who resorts to censorship should be regarded as a liar, criminal, loser, and failure.

Compared to an athletic event, there is no quality control in a political election. For example, there is nothing analogous to a referee for our elections. Two problems that result from the lack of referees are:

1) Political candidates can make false remarks without any consequences.

2) Nobody can settle accusations of cheating.

When we have a discussion, we put our opinions into a competition. If the discussion is with our friends or relatives, there will not be any referees to settle disputes, and this causes most people to quickly become frustrated, which triggers monkey-like behavior, such as yelling, glaring, and sarcastic noises.

A referee is analogous to a quality control department. The referees are in a leadership position, and they help us to resolve disputes. We need people in that position because we cannot expect people to resolve their differences on their own, mainly because we have different genetic intellectual and emotional characteristics, and partly because we want to give lectures rather than have discussions. An example are disagreements over evolution and creationism. Not many of us are interested in discussing that issue. Rather, we tend to insult people with a difference of opinion.

The dispute between religion and evolution has been resolved to a certain extent by allowing religious organizations to teach creationism, and requiring the public schools to teach evolution. However, that type of solution doesn't work for all problems. For example, we cannot resolve the issue of global warming by letting the global warming supporters pay carbon taxes and letting the rest of us ignore the issue.

There are disputes all the time about the scores in rhythmic gymnastic events, but those events are only for the entertainment of a few people, so it doesn't matter if the disputes are resolved. However, the judges of those athletic events put more effort into trying to resolve disputes than the government officials are doing over issues that are much more important to us, such as the cheating in the 2020 elections.

This Constitution wants to reverse that situation. The Kastron government will have a quality control department to resolve disputes, and to pass judgment on who in an influential position should be replaced. As with the judges of a rhythmic gymnastic event, the quality control officials will respond to complaints from the people about cheating, corruption, inefficiency, and other problems.

By restricting the leadership positions to people who encourage exploration, curiosity, and differences of opinion, we will create a social environment that is so relaxing and peaceful that we would feel safe to discuss any issue we please. None of us would be afraid that somebody will become hysterical, violent, or angry over a difference of opinion. None of us would be afraid of being fired from our jobs for expressing an opinion, either, and we would not worry about being insulted as "anti-" something, or a "denier" of something.

Such a relaxing environment would make it easier for us to join conversations, which in turn will help people to socialize, meet new people, form friendships, and learn new things. We would feel so safe around one another that we could get into discussions with strangers.

Furthermore, when people are so well behaved that there is no such thing as a controversial or forbidden issue, then we will have a wider variety of issues to discuss.

In our world today, we are cautious about discussing certain issues in public, and so we end up censoring ourselves. We are especially cautious about making critical remarks. Many people describe this self-censorship as being "polite", but it's more accurate to say that it is appeasing the neurotic, violent, and crude people, and that it is suppressing constructive criticism.

In our world today, people are so intolerant of different opinions that some people advise their friends and family members to avoid discussions of politics and religion. That type of advice encourages people to be fearful and timid rather than curious and adventurous. That is as idiotic as a group of scientists who are so intolerant of differences of opinion that they advise one another to never discuss chemistry or mechanical engineering in public.

Scientists realize that in order for progress to occur, they must be able to discuss their opinions and look critically at their data and conclusions. They cannot be afraid to give constructive criticism, or worry that they might hurt somebody's feelings. However, the majority of people do not understand this concept.

Inhibiting a discussion about a social issue is as detrimental and unacceptable as inhibiting discussions about chemistry or mechanical engineering. Furthermore, arresting a person for Holocaust denial, climate change denial, sexism, or other nonsensical crimes is as detrimental and unacceptable as scientists who want to arrest one another for Big Bang Denial, or Dark Matter Denial.

If the people in Kastron can control their emotions well enough to allow people to feel safe to discuss any issue we please, we will get into conversations that we are afraid to discuss today, and through the years those discussions will evolve into issues that none of us have considered yet.

When we start a conversation about an issue, it can lead us to related issues, and those discussions can lead to still other issues. Discussing an issue is like exploring the unknown, or developing new technology, so if we are not afraid to explore the issue, the discussions will eventually lead to issues that we were unaware of.

If we could travel into the distant future, I think we would discover that some of the conversations at lunch and dinner are about issues that we never thought of because we are self-censoring ourselves to such an extent that we keep our conversations limited to a small number of issues.

People today are self-censoring their discussions about religion, evolution, abortion, and hundreds of other issues. If we were living among people who were so tolerant of differences of opinion that we felt comfortable discussing everything, what would the following three issues eventually lead us to?

Are any of the plants continuing their evolution of converting sunlight? If so, some of those plants might evolve to using more of the green light, causing them to become increasingly dark. A billion years from now a photograph of a forest or garden might show the leaves are almost black, and the only colors are in the flowers, bark, fruit, and seeds.

The people who promote The Big Bang theory claim that the universe began from a tiny point, and then expanded outward, but if that is true, then everything should increase its distance from everything else. There should be no collisions.

So why are astronomers claiming that some galaxies are colliding, and that the Milky Way will eventually collide with Andromeda?

An interesting aspect of religion is the concept that the devil will torture people "forever" in hell, and that we will live "forever" in heaven.

If every person that goes to hell is being tortured "forever", that is putting a tremendous burden on the devil. Try to visualize hell, and how it would have to grow larger in size as the number of people increase. If people exist on the earth for the next few billion years, there might eventually be trillions of people in hell. Now try to visualize the devil torturing those people every day, and forever. Would you want that job? I would say the devil would be suffering more than the people in hell.

The concept of spending forever in heaven is just as ridiculous. What would you do each day if you lived "forever" in heaven? Heaven is supposed to be a place where we don't work, suffer, or do anything except float around the clouds. If we actually had to spend forever in heaven, I think that most of us would commit suicide after a few centuries.

I suspect that the belief that we will spend "forever" in heaven or hell was created by people who didn't have a good understanding of the concept of "forever" or "infinity". They probably thought of forever as being a few lifetimes.

How many people understand that if we live forever, our past will always be an insignificantly brief moment in our entire life, even if we could live for a trillion years?

The image to the right might help explain this concept. That is a timeline of the universe. It starts at the beginning of the universe, and it extends forever.

The years that have already passed by are a finite number of years, but since our future is infinite, the billions of years of history will always appear to be an insignificant moment of time compared to the amount of time remaining in the future.

That timeline would be so long that the only way we could see the time period of the dinosaurs would be to zoom in on the microscopic portion at the start of the timeline. As we zoom out, the billions of years of the earth's history become too small to see, and we cannot zoom out enough to see the entire timeline because it is infinite in length.

That timeline assumes that there was a beginning to the universe, but what if there was no beginning? What if the universe has already existed forever? And what if it will continue to exist forever? In that case, we are halfway through the lifetime of the universe, and we will never get beyond halfway.

Or perhaps the timeline for the universe is a loop, (a Mobius strip?), and we will eventually get back to the beginning and repeat the cycle, and forever. Or is the timeline logarithmic, in which case time is speeding up, and will eventually be going so fast that the universe self-destructs? Or is time slowing down, in which case it eventually stops?

It is possible that some scientists don't have a good understanding of infinity. This could explain why they are attracted to The Big Bang Theory. As with the biblical story of creation, the Big Bang Theory avoids the concept of infinity.

Both of those theories claim that the universe appeared suddenly from nothing, thereby avoiding the confusing issue of what was here before the universe, and whether it has existed for an infinite amount of time. Both theories also ignore the issue of whether the universe is infinite in size.

If the universe is going to exist forever, and if the scientists are correct that all of the stars will burn out after a few tens of billions of years, then a few trillion years from now the entire universe will be a completely black wasteland of frozen stars and planets. However, trillions of people will still be floating around in heaven, and trillions of other people will continue to be tortured in hell.

Or will heaven and/or hell also become dark and frozen? Or does heaven and/or hell have their own power sources that will supply them with energy forever?

Another possibility is that galaxies are continuously forming from space, evolving, and converting back into space, and doing so forever, similar to how eddies are constantly forming, changing, and vanishing in the ocean, as in the image to the right of some Gulfstream eddies.

According to Harvard’s "Top Astronomer", Avi Loeb, there is intelligent life everywhere in the universe, which is certainly possible, but there is more supporting evidence for Noah's Ark.

I suspect that the creation of life requires such an unusual combination of events that it is an extremely rare event.

It is even possible that getting life started requires a planet with a certain sized moon at a certain distance in order to create stress fractures in the surface, thereby releasing minerals or increasing the surface area for catalytic reactions.

Of the planets in which life gets started, how many of them get past the stage of bacteria? In order for intelligent animals to form, the solar system has to provide certain conditions for billions of years, but that might be very unusual. For example, the sun might have to start cooling down in a certain manner at the same moment that certain chemicals start to form.

When chemists create dyes, plastics, vitamins, vaccines, and other chemicals, they don't simply mix a bunch of molecules in a pot and then wait for those molecules to spontaneously create something new. Instead, chemists have to do a lot of complex operations, and they need precise control over pressure, temperature, humidity, and other conditions.

Getting life started may require a set of procedures that is more complex than anything the chemists are doing right now, and the chances that such complex procedures occur by themselves may be so incredibly small that we are the first intelligent life to have formed.

Billions of years from now our ancestors will have to leave the solar system. They might create lots of gigantic spaceships that are the size of a small city, and start traveling around the universe in different directions to find another solar system. After trillions of years, our descendants may be all over the universe, but will they encounter any intelligent life?

The discussion of infinity was not entirely for entertainment. I think the difficulty people have with infinity is because we inherited the mind of a monkey.

Some animals show a slight ability to be aware of the past and to predict the future, such as when a cat predicts that when a mouse runs behind an object it will probably appear on the other side of the object, but other than making those type of predictions, animals do not contemplate the past or the future.

Humans are much more aware of the past and future, but a lot of people prefer to ignore both of them. We have expressions for this attitude, such as "Enjoy the Moment", "Embrace The Moment", and "Focus on the Present". Those remarks are regarded as "inspirational", and this document describes 93 of them as "awesome".

Some websites promote this remark by Stephen Richards, who some people describe as an author of "inspirational" or "self-help" books:

Some websites claim that Buddha gave the advice:

This person claims that Buddha's remark was not translated correctly, but it doesn't matter because the point I want to make is that lots of people are attracted to the concept of ignoring the past and future, and that this attitude could be described as the attitude of an animal. It is also similar to Marquis de Sade's attitude of do whatever feels good.

Our prehistoric ancestors did not have to pay much attention to the past or the future because their lives were virtually the same every day. They could do whatever their emotions pleased, just like an animal. However, in a modern society, we are not being "inspirational" when we encourage people to ignore the past and the future. Rather, we are encouraging detrimental behavior because:

The people who ignore the past and future are going to behave as if they are suffering from Alzheimer's. An example are the people who attended the Trump rallies. They had so little interest in analyzing the past that they never noticed that Trump was not keeping his promises, they were not learning anything new from him, and he was not "draining the swamp". Instead, for four years they listened to virtually the same speech, and they chanted the same slogans over and over, such as "Lock her up" and "U-S-A", just as if they were Alzheimer's patients.

Of course, to be fair to Trump, the people in influential positions are involved with a secretive war, so Trump and many of his supporters may have been accomplishing a lot more than we realize. However, from the point of view of the public, Trump was doing almost nothing, but very few of his supporters noticed or complained about it.

The liberals also ignore the past and the future. An example is how they ignore the effect immigration has on the world. For example, every time a boat with refugees arrives on our beach, or a caravan of migrants arrives at the border, the liberals react as if it is the first time such an event has occurred. They feel sorry for the "underdogs" and let them into the nation. Later, when another group of underdogs arrives, the liberals repeat the same policy of feeling sorry for them and letting them in, just as if it was the first time the event occurred.

If the liberals were to analyze the past and try to predict the future, they would notice some serious problems with their immigration policy, such as:


As a result of our idiotic immigration policies, the USA and Western European nations will eventually become as crowded as Hong Kong, and dominated by the poor people from Africa, South America, and Asia.

Many liberals justify their immigration policies by boasting that they are kind and generous people who want to share the wealth of the USA, but it should be noted that they do not want to share their wealth. They want to share other people's wealth.

For example, millions of liberals in the USA have houses and plots of land that are large enough to hold several migrant families, but they do not want to share their homes with the migrants. Furthermore, if they were forced to allow the migrant families to live in their home, they would demand that the migrants speak English and follow their rules and culture. They would not allow the migrants to continue to speak a foreign language, and follow a foreign culture.

The Communists have provided us with a tremendous amount of supporting evidence that the liberals have a selfish, hypocritical attitude. As with Marquis de Sade, the liberals tend to do whatever makes themselves feel good, without being concerned about the effect they will have on other people. For example, they support sharing the wealth when it is other people's wealth; they support diversity in other people's neighborhoods; and they support sharing the chores when other people do the work.

The liberals boast about their noble qualities in order to titillate themselves, and to impress us, not because they want to give us an accurate description of their behavior. Perhaps the most obvious example of this are the liberals who boast about how they support freedom of speech while demanding the censorship, arrest, or rehabilitation of the people who disagree with them.

Some of the liberals who boast about supporting freedom of speech are too mentally defective to notice their hypocrisy, but some of them are trying to deceive us. For example, I think the liberals at Twitter and Facebook boast about supporting freedom of speech in order to deceive us into accepting their censorship.

This issue is similar to that of one of my earliest documents, in which I pointed out that criminals can get away with their crimes by pretending to be crime investigators. An example of this deception is when a pedophile gets involved with investigating pedophilia in order to fool us into believing that he is not a pedophile. How many voters can understand this concept? And how many are fooled by it?

The document that lists "93 Awesome Quotes About Enjoy the Moment" starts with such remarks as:


Why do people "dwell" on their past? Why do people "worry about" their future? That type of behavior is irrational. The most sensible thing for each of us to do is analyze our past and look for ways to improve our future. It is idiotic to dwell, worry about, or ignore our past or future.

The people who lack the desire and/or ability to learn from their past and improve their lives have a mind that is similar to that of an animal. They are not suited to our modern world. More important to this series of documents, they will not be effective leaders.

A poll that asked people why they were having trouble getting to sleep at night claims that 28% said that caffeine was keeping them awake. If that poll is accurate, there are a lot of people who realize that caffeine is keeping them awake, but they continue to make the mistake of having too much caffeine at night. Why don't they learn from their mistakes and improve their life? Why would they make the same mistake over and over?

Caffeine does not stop my brother from getting to sleep, but I noticed that it keeps me awake, so I avoid it from the afternoon onward. Why am I capable of learning to avoid caffeine at night but not millions of other people? What is different about me?

A person who makes the same mistakes over and over is not likely to be a useful leader for society. Rather, he is a person who cannot analyze his life, learn from his mistakes, or find ways to improve his life. Another way to express that concept is that a person who cannot provide leadership to himself is not likely to be able to provide leadership to any of us.

This Constitution wants to restrict the top leadership positions to the men who have demonstrated an ability to improve their lives. They should show an ability to reduce the mistakes they make rather than repeat the mistakes. They should also show an ability to improve their opinions through the years.

The conservatives are impressed by a man who retains the same opinions throughout his life. They refer to those men as having "stability", and "never wavering". That attitude was desirable for our prehistoric ancestors because they lived in an environment that did not change from one generation to the next.

However, in our modern era, children are picking up lots of conflicting and idiotic information, and technology is changing rapidly. Adults today should occasionally look critically at the information they picked up, and their goals in life. For example, as we learn more about food and nutrition, we need to analyze our diet, and as we learn more about exercise and sleep, we need to analyze our activities and sleep habits. An adult today who is "stable" and "never wavers" is a stupid monkey who cannot improve his life. We even need to look critically at the expressions we pick up, such as starting every sentence with "So", or "That being said".

As I write this document (January/February 2021), some cities in the US and Europe are having problems with snow, ice, and wind, such as this and this from icy roads. Every year our cities suffer from the same weather problems. If we cannot deal with routine weather conditions, how are we going to deal with the more complex problems of crime, corruption, overcrowding, and genetic disorders?

We cannot prevent or control hurricanes or tornadoes, but it is easy for us to deal with routine storms. For example, we have the technology and resources to create cities with underground trains, and to create paths between the buildings that are enclosed in glass or plastic panels to protect us from the weather, as in the photo below. We could enjoy walks and bicycle rides throughout the city all year, even during the most fierce winter storm.

We could also enclose swimming pools, fields of grass, and gardens
so that we have recreational activities all year, as in the photo below.

Humans have enough intelligence to create beautiful cities that protect us from the weather and insects, and which provide us with spectacular parks, factories, office buildings, and recreational facilities. We could enjoy the snow, rain, and hail rather than suffer from them.

We can start the process of creating better cities and improving our lives as soon as we find a large group of people who have the courage to experiment with new culture, the desire and ability to work in a team for the benefit of all, and the self-control to refrain from cheating, raping, and lying.

Can you find the initiative and
self-control to become one of those pioneers?